D.C.: Body cam didn’t support trial court finding of consent to feel a bag; it essentially happened as one move as officer asked for consent

The record doesn’t support the trial court’s finding of consent to a squeeze of a bag that revealed a gun. The officer was reaching for the bag asking for consent. “The government played footage from Denton’s body worn camera (‘BWC’), which corroborated Denton’s testimony up to that point. In the footage, Denton can be heard asking Hawkins, ‘you mind if, you mind if I just squeeze that man?’ Under cross-examination, Denton admitted that, in the video, his hands were moving toward the satchel as he asked for consent to squeeze it. Denton agreed that Hawkins did not verbally respond to his request to search the bag, but he said that Hawkins had nodded his head in consent.” The court also discusses the standard of review of findings of consent to a search. Hawkins v. United States, 2021 D.C. App. LEXIS 88 (Apr. 8, 2021).

“No reasonable jurist could debate the district court’s denial of Patton’s Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and subject-matter-jurisdiction claims as barred by the Younger abstention doctrine. Patton has not made a substantial showing that he would be irreparably injured by having to litigate those claims in his state criminal case. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 53.” Patton v. Bonner, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 10080 (6th Cir. Apr. 7, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Issue preclusion, Standards of review. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.