N.D.Iowa: Asking “What’s going on?” was not withdrawal of consent

The court adopts the R&R finding on the totality that defendant consented to a search of his backpack, despite some intoxication. His saying “What’s going on?” was not withdrawal of consent. United States v. Harden, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126242 (N.D. Iowa July 7, 2021).*

The court granted preliminary discovery as to how police in another country found his IP address to report it to American authorities because he made a prima facie case of potential U.S. government involvement. On the merits of that discovery claim, however, he fails: “ As far as the Government’s Rule 16 discovery obligations go, there is nothing left to be done. The Government must turn over what it possesses, but it cannot be faulted under Rule 16 for not turning over materials that it tried but was unable to obtain.” United States v. Mitrovich, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126272 (N.D. Ill. July 7, 2021).*

Defendant was the passenger in a rental car driven by her codefendant, and neither was on the rental agreement. Under Byrd, they had permission to have it, and, therefore, standing. Asking them to exit the vehicle was reasonable under Mimms. During the traffic stop, reasonable suspicion developed, and the search was not unreasonably extended. United States v. Garmon, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126338 (E.D. Va. July 6, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Foreign searches, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.