CA5: Def’s actions showed he consented to entry into house

The evidence supports the district court’s conclusion defendant consented to the second entry of his home. His actions and turning to lead officers into his house showed consent. United States v. Lozano, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 16894 (5th Cir. June 17, 2022).*

“Defendant’s argument that he did not freely and voluntarily consent to the search of his phone is highly unpersuasive. Defendant, in part, argues that he was coerced, because he is ‘a middle-aged tire truck delivery driver’ who ‘had never been arrested before and was not aware of the rights and protections afforded to him by the legal system.’ … Viewing Defendant’s personal characteristics first, as discussed above, the mere fact that Defendant is a middle-aged delivery driver does not support his claim that he did not know what he was doing or did not reasonably appreciate the nature and significance of his actions. In fact, Defendant’s conduct and speech throughout the interview show that he knew what he was doing and was aware of the consequences.” United States v. Worthy, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109093 (W.D.Mo. June 21, 2022).*

The safety of a police dog is a valid concern for a police officer in use of force. A dog is an effect under the Fourth Amendment. This case deals with balancing the interests of a citizen’s family dog and a police dog. White v. City of Detroit, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 16876 (6th Cir. June 17, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Excessive force. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.