MS: Knowledge of rights supported voluntariness of consent

Defendant at first insisted on a warrant to search his car. Later he confessed. This knowledge of his rights shows that his consent was voluntary. McDonald v. State, 130 So. 3d 102 (Miss. App. 2013):

P16. At trial, there was no testimony that Agent Dennis kept McDonald’s driver’s license. Instead, there was simply a lack of testimony regarding whether the driver’s license was handed back. This is insufficient to find that McDonald’s consent was coerced. Furthermore, McDonald initially declined to permit the officers to search his vehicle, stating: “I know my rights, get a warrant.” He made this statement after he had handed Agent Dennis his driver’s license. Therefore, he was not coerced based on the officer’s alleged possession of his driver’s license. However, after speaking with Agent Dennis regarding the informant’s tip, McDonald attempted to gain favorable treatment by admitting to the presence of drugs in his vehicle. At this point, McDonald changed his mind, and permitted the search of his vehicle. Therefore, it is clear that McDonald voluntarily consented to the search of his vehicle, and no coercion was involved. This issue is without merit.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.