W.D.Mich.: With no evidence to rebut the prosecution evidence def consented to search of his person, the govt met its burden of proof on consent

“In this case, Defendant expressly indicated that he does not dispute the validity of his consent, but solely the scope of that consent. Detective Fox testified that he asked for Defendant’s general consent to search his person and that Defendant said that he could conduct a search. No evidence was provided to this Court to rebut Detective Fox’s testimony. No evidence was provided to suggest that Defendant’s consent was withheld or involuntary. And no evidence was provided to suggest that Defendant otherwise limited the scope of Detective Fox’s search to a pat-down for weapons. With no evidence to the contrary, and finding Detective Fox to have given credible testimony, the Court finds that defendant did consent to a search of his person and did not take steps to limit that search in the process.” United States v. Darden-Mosby, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34684 (W.D.Mich. Feb. 28, 2022).*

Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense, and told the officer he was going to work in oil fields. The rental car (with a five-day rental) had no visible luggage and looked like it was for a short drug run. The officer correctly concluded that was all reasonable suspicion. The five-day rental didn’t match the story. United States v. Imhoff, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 5232 (9th Cir. Feb. 28, 2022).* (This could have gone either way in the district court.)

This entry was posted in Consent, Reasonable suspicion, Voluntariness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.