{"id":2563,"date":"2008-12-24T06:36:20","date_gmt":"2008-10-18T07:21:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-10-19T07:40:42","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2563","title":{"rendered":"CO: Language barrier to consent being not voluntary is defendant’s burden"},"content":{"rendered":"

The encounter with defendant was consensual, and it led to a patdown with the officer asking if he had anything on him, and he admitted to cocaine. Police were called to a gun store because a man with a warrant was trying to buy a gun, so they came to check him out. Defendant’s claim of language being a barrier was something that he had to prove and did not. People v. Marujo<\/a>, 192 P.3d 1003 (Colo. 2008)*:<\/p>\n

This court has enumerated a list of factors that may demonstrate that “a reasonable, innocent person would not feel free to decline the officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.” Jackson<\/em>, 39 P.3d at 1184. The factors include but are not limited to:<\/p>\n

(1) whether there is a display of authority or control over the defendant by activating the siren or any patrol car overhead lights;
\n(2) the number of officers present;
\n(3) whether the officer approaches in a non-threatening manner;
\n(4) whether the officer displays a weapon;
\n(5) whether the officer requests or demands information;
\n(6) whether the officer’s tone of voice is conversational or whether it indicates that compliance with the request for information might be compelled;
\n(7) whether the officer physically touches the person of the citizen;
\n(8) whether an officer’s show of authority or exercise of control over an individual impedes that individual’s ability to terminate the encounter;
\n(9) the duration of the encounter; and
\n(10) whether the officer retains the citizen’s identification or travel documents.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Id.<\/em> For a police-citizen encounter to rise to the level of a seizure, the obligation to comply must be greater than the obligation an innocent citizen would normally feel to cooperate with the police. Johnson<\/em>, 865 P.2d at 842-43.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Ripping out plaintiff’s penis piercing during a second unnecessary strip search made jailers liable for his injury. The second strip search was unreasonable and excessive force was applied. Alvarez v. Iniguez, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82113 (C.D. Cal. September 5, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2563","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2563","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2563"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2563\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2563"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2563"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2563"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}