Defendant consented to search of his car, not knowing the battery was of interest to the police as a place to hide contraband.

When defendant consented to search of his car, he didn’t know that the battery was of interest to the police as a place to hide contraband. As far as he knew, the battery was inside the car so the consent to search inside the car was voluntary. Police retained the battery as potential evidence and put another one in there without telling him before they returned the car. That violated the Fourth Amendment because he then couldn’t revoke his consent. After all that, however, the exclusionary rule would not be applied because the police acted reasonably and in good faith. United States v. Zavala, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33724 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 2024)*:

Zavala is correct insofar as there was no exigency when law enforcement destroyed the battery and found the contraband. The battery was in law enforcement’s sole possession inside a secure facility. And their past search warrants were approved expeditiously. And, as this court concluded above in this opinion, law enforcement’s retention of the battery was not justified by consent—law enforcement did not notify Zavala that it retained the battery, so Zavala was unable to revoke his consent. But under the totality of the circumstances, the court does not conclude that law enforcement acted with gross negligence, recklessness, or deliberate disregard for Zavala’s Fourth Amendment rights when they concluded that his consent allowed them to retain and subsequently search the battery.

There is ample evidence to suggest that law enforcement conducted this investigation in good faith. They obtained two search warrants for their searches. Even after obtaining the first search warrant, they obtained Zavala’s written consent to bootstrap the legality of their search in light of the invasive techniques they planned to employ. Agents Wilson and DeBoer credibly testified about their efforts in this case to follow appropriate procedures.

The critical fact here is that the car without the battery went back to the defendant before the contraband was found.

This entry was posted in Consent, Exclusionary rule. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.