Co-driver with owner of truck was capable of consent, even though owner (defendant, with a superior legal interest) was also present. Houston v. State, 286 S.W.3d 604 (Tex. App.\u2013Beaumont 2009),* citing Maxwell v. State, 73 S.W.3d 278, 282 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). <\/p>\n
“[A]lthough Defendant showed that an omission occurred, he made no showing that the affiant intended to mislead the judge by that omission.” United States v. Merrell<\/a>, 330 Fed. Appx. 556, 2009 FED App. 0382N (6th Cir. 2009)* (unpublished).<\/p>\n Defendant was not seized when he walked away from officers calling for him to stop. He was when they laid hands upon him. Officers had reasonable suspicion based on the fact it was a high crime area and they were sent by dispatch to the place of a fight. United States v. Mitchell, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44489 (E.D. N.Y. May 27, 2009).*<\/p>\n The fact the consenter was under pressure to consent by her circumstances did not make it involuntary. United States v. Newman, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44635 (W.D. Wisc. May 27, 2009):<\/p>\n Nevertheless, the record does not support a claim of illegal coercion to admit to drug possession. The record shows a young woman in a tight spot, wanting to protect her boyfriend but wanting even more to protect herself and her child from the consequences of an arrest on drug charges. Faced with a decision between temporarily delaying a search of her apartment that she knew would disclose at least the marijuana pipe and agreeing to a search with the promise that she would not be charged with possession of the pipe or any other paraphernalia, she made a rational choice based on accurate, if unpalatable information.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Search of defendant’s person was justified by search incident and money found on him was admissible in drug case. State v. Grimes<\/a>, 2009 La. App. LEXIS 982 (5th Cir. May 26, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading