{"id":2817,"date":"2009-03-04T13:38:54","date_gmt":"2008-12-29T07:52:38","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-12-28T18:50:35","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2817","title":{"rendered":"OR: Refusal to consent cannot be considered in RS"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant&#8217;s refusal to permit officer who felt a circular tin and asked what was in it to search could not form the basis of reasonable suspicion. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.publications.ojd.state.or.us\/A131597.htm\">State v. Foland<\/a>, 224 Ore. App. 649, 199 P.3d 362 (2008):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>A person&#8217;s reaction to a request for consent to search is not sufficient as a matter of law to support an objectively reasonable belief of criminal activity. As here, where a person has the right to refuse consent, the<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>&#8220;refusal to give consent to a search undoubtedly caused the officer to have a healthy suspicion that defendant was probably in illegal possession of something; but such a suspicion, however well founded, having been aroused merely on the basis of an assertion of one&#8217;s constitutional rights, can play no part in creating probable cause for a search.&#8221; <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>State v. Gressel, 276 Or 333, 338-39, 554 P2d 1014 (1976). We view defendant&#8217;s reaction to the inquiries concerning the patdown and the contents of the tin as &#8220;merely an unsophisticated attempt to assert his right of privacy.&#8221; Id. at 338. Defendant&#8217;s reaction to a request for consent that he is constitutionally entitled to refuse cannot form the basis of reasonable suspicion. To hold otherwise and &#8220;allow[ ] the police to use defendant&#8217;s assertion of a privacy right as the basis for depriving him of that right would render the promise of Article I, section 9, illusory.&#8221; State v. Brown, 110 Or App 604, 611-12, 825 P2d 282 (1992) (holding that defendant&#8217;s &#8220;excited and belligerent&#8221; demeanor and his action of grabbing his car keys was a clumsy effort to assert his right to the privacy of his cars and refuse consent and could not be a basis for reasonable grounds to believe the cars contained evidence of a parole violation).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>AUSA was entitled to qualified immunity on a claim of an overbroad search warrant in a fraud case.  Slaey v. Adams, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103903 (E.D. Va. December 23, 2008).*<\/p>\n<p>Rental property inspection ordinance was constitutional because it provided for a warrant or consent, and there was no penalty for refusing consent. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.courts.state.ny.us\/reporter\/3dseries\/2008\/2008_10088.htm\">McLean v. City of Kingston<\/a>, 2008 NY Slip Op 10088,  2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9810 (3d Dept. December 24, 2008).*<\/p>\n<p>Defendant would have felt free to leave, so he was not detained coercively when he consented to a search of his car. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca11.uscourts.gov\/unpub\/ops\/200810732.pdf\">United States v. Crossley<\/a>, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 26335 (11th Cir. December 23, 2008) (unpublished)* (I&#8217;m not convinced.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2817\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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-2817","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2817","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=2817"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2817\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2817"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2817"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2817"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}