\u201cIn addition, the Government testified that Stepp voluntarily consented to the search. However, even assuming that Stepp merely raised his hands in silence upon the trooper’s search request, the Sixth Circuit has established that any such acquiescence indicates assent.\u201d United States v. Rice, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27217 (E.D.Ky. Feb. 12, 2016), adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26361, (E.D.Ky. March 2, 2016).<\/p>\n
Mandamus to return property is not the proper remedy. A court has to rule on the motion for return of property, and then it\u2019s appealed. Pristine Pre-Owned Auto v. Courrier<\/a>, 2016 W. Va. LEXIS 136 (March 3, 2016).<\/p>\n Defendant was in the back of a police car for safety reasons, and she wasn\u2019t under arrest and not having her cell phone didn\u2019t make it an arrest. She wasn\u2019t detained until she became belligerent. State v. Hall<\/a>, 2016-Ohio-783, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 701 (1st Dist. Mar. 2, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cIn addition, the Government testified that Stepp voluntarily consented to the search. However, even assuming that Stepp merely raised his hands in silence upon the trooper’s search request, the Sixth Circuit has established that any such acquiescence indicates assent.\u201d United … Continue reading