{"id":27212,"date":"2017-05-18T13:57:29","date_gmt":"2017-05-18T18:57:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=27212"},"modified":"2017-05-18T13:57:29","modified_gmt":"2017-05-18T18:57:29","slug":"wapo-is-voluntariness-of-consent-to-search-or-seize-a-question-of-fact-law-or-both","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=27212","title":{"rendered":"WaPo: Is voluntariness of consent to search or seize a question of fact, law or both?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>WaPo: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/the-fix\/wp\/2017\/05\/17\/the-guy-who-predicted-comeys-memos-thinks-comey-may-be-trying-to-take-down-president-trump\/?tid=pm_politics_pop&#038;utm_term=.914f516837cc\">Is voluntariness of consent to search or seize a question of fact, law or both?<\/a> by Orin Kerr:<br \/>\n<!--more--><br \/>\nRe Asku v. California, cert. pet. pending:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>In light of that [prior] post, I thought I would flag a very interesting cert petition from the Jenner &#038; Block Supreme Court Clinic at the University of Chicago in Aksu v. California. Here\u2019s the Question Presented:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The federal courts of appeals and state courts of last resort acknowledge that they are intractably split about a recurring and important issue under the Fourth Amendment. A large number of courts treat the question of whether a defendant voluntarily consented to a warrantless search as a mixed question of fact and law that is reviewed de novo on appeal, much like the voluntariness of a confession under the Fifth Amendment. An equally large number of courts, including the court here, have treated the voluntariness of a consent to a search as a factual question, subject only to highly deferential appellate review.<\/p>\n<p>The question presented is: What is the standard by which appellate courts review a trial co<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>urt\u2019s holding that a defendant voluntarily consented to a warrantless search for Fourth Amendment purposes?<\/p>\n<p>California waived its right to file a response, but the court directed California to file one anyway. California has now filed its Brief in Opposition, &#8230;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>WaPo: Is voluntariness of consent to search or seize a question of fact, law or both? by Orin Kerr:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[24,96],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27212","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-consent","category-standards-of-review"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27212","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\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=27212"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27212\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27213,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27212\/revisions\/27213"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=27212"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=27212"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=27212"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}