Three on consent from 7/20

Police responded to a shots fired call. The bodycam video shows that there was consent for entry into the home, albeit granted reluctantly. (Based on the factual recitation, it was likely a warrantless entry could have occurred because there was good reason to believe there was a child injured by gunfire inside.) United States v. Barber, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128877 (E.D. Tex. July 20, 2022).*

“After listening to the complete audio recorded interview between Nickas and the detectives, which has been detailed above, the court finds that although the detectives were persistent in asking Nickas about consenting to the seizure and search of her cell phone, in the end her consent was knowingly made and voluntary. The interview lasting about 55 minutes showed that Nickas was repeatedly advised of the purpose of the investigation and why detectives wanted to examine Nickas’ cell phone. Nickas’ statements to detectives indicated that she understood the investigation, the process, and why she was being interviewed.” United States v. Nickas, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129077 (M.D. Pa. July 20, 2022).*

“Raley’s statement granting consent as described by the officers’ testimony strongly suggests that his consent was made freely and voluntarily. There is no indication in the record that Mr. Raley did not understand what he was doing when he gave consent.” United States v. Raley, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128634 (W.D. Ky. July 20, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Voluntariness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.