E.D.Pa.: Threat to get SW was real and lawful and did not coerce consent

“Mr. Adams contends that the agents coerced him into giving consent involuntarily when they threatened to seize his phone and hold it until they obtained a search warrant. … I disagree. For the reasons stated below, I conclude that Mr. Adams’ consent was voluntary and that the agents’ statements about the existence of exigent circumstances and their ability to obtain a warrant were both supported by law and a fair characterization of how the investigation would proceed.” United States v. Adams, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196352 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 28, 2022).*

The protective sweep here looking under the bed was reasonable. Defendant’s contention the sweep went further isn’t clear. Some things were moved and opened, but a search warrant had been executed between the sweep and her reentering the house. United States v. Harrell, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195776 (S.D. W. Va. Oct. 27, 2022).*

A state law violation on the jurisdiction of the officer is irrelevant under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Nelson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195974 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2022)* (“I agree with Defendant that such a reading of the case law could lead to an absurd result. It cannot be that a local law-enforcement officer can traverse the country and, upon witnessing a potential crime that creates probable cause, stop and search people. But the Eleventh Circuit did not provide a limiting principle in Goings when it applied Moore to the question of jurisdiction, and I am bound by this precedent. Even so, this case is not one that pushes the scope of the rule to the edge.”)

This entry was posted in Consent, Protective sweep, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.