E.D.N.Y.: Consent not shown coerced by agreement not to disclose infidelity

Defendant’s consent was not “coerced” by any alleged agreement not to disclose his infidelity to his girlfriend. Defendant’s consent was underscored by his putting limits on the search. United States v. Ng, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70501 (E.D. N.Y. June 30, 2011):

While Defendant asserts that the agents agreed not to disclose his infidelity “on the condition that [Defendant] consent to the searches,” Defendant’s Memo at 10, this assertion is unsupported by the evidence. It was Defendant who set the conditions for his consent, telling the agents that he would agree to the search of the cell phones in exchange for the promise not to return them to the girlfriend. Similarly, it was Defendant who set the conditions for the search of the apartment, telling the agents that he would consent only if they agreed to let him alert the girlfriend in advance and accompany the agents during the search. There is no evidence whatsoever that the agents either explicitly or implicitly threatened to expose Defendant’s infidelity.

In this § 2255, the argument that defense counsel failed to attack the search warrant as a general warrant was frivolous. It hardly was. United States v. McClellan, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70031 (W.D. Pa. June 29, 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.