D.Nev.: Consent of co-occupant to search was inherently coercive and search recommended suppressed

In a knock and talk at a motel room, defendant refused entry and attempted to shut the door. The officer stuck his foot in the door and grabbed defendant and pulled him out. The officer had probable cause to believe that defendant was in violation of the Nevada felon registration statute at the time. The consent of the co-occupant was invalid: she was taken from the room in handcuffs and warned of dire consequences for not cooperating while her child was asleep on the bed, and the circumstances were inherently coercive. United States v. Patterson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36827 (D. Nev. February 28, 2011)*:

The validity vel non of Hodges’ consent to the search of the room turns on whether it was induced by police coercion. On this issue the court credits Hodges’ account of the events that evening. In his testimony Det. Knudson denied that Hodges was threatened in any way. Viewing his testimony in a light most favorable to the government, the court finds that he did not affirmatively tell Hodges that unless she signed the consent form, she would lose her baby. Indeed, Hodges herself did not testify that Knudson — or Kwity, for that matter — uttered those words. Hodges did testify credibly, however, that the detectives told her three times she could be in a lot of trouble on account of the drugs found in the room, but that if she cooperated, everything would be all right. The last time they said it was after she pointedly asked whether the detectives were going to take her baby away from her. The court finds that she reasonably interpreted the detectives’ words to mean that unless she signed the consent form, they would arrest her and take her baby.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.