{"id":3436,"date":"2010-03-23T07:28:53","date_gmt":"2009-10-11T10:00:55","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-10-11T10:00:55","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3436","title":{"rendered":"AR: False compartment was PC; once it was found, it was too late to revoke consent"},"content":{"rendered":"

The officer’s finding of a false compartment during a consent search was probable cause. Revocation of consent at that point was too late. Espinoza v. State<\/a>, 2009 Ark. App. 636, 2009 Ark. App. LEXIS 800 (September 30, 2009).*<\/p>\n

Defendant did not testify at the suppression hearing, and he failed to prove standing. People v Lacey<\/a>, 66 A.D.3d 704, 887 N.Y.S.2d 158 (2d Dept. 2009).*<\/p>\n

Police got an anonymous letter about drug activity at defendant’s house, so they went to do a knock-and-talk. When she opened the door, the officers could smell marijuana. She then consented to a search. State v. Prosen<\/a>, 19 So. 3d 594 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2009).*<\/p>\n

Defendant lived in a high crime area, and he was the subject of a tip. The officer saw the police and fled into his own place. The officer gave chase, but got to the door and could not get in. Finally, he did, and it was unreasonable. State v. Harris<\/a>, 21 So. 3d 437 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2009)*:<\/p>\n

Although we do not find flagrant misconduct by the police, the fact remains that we do not know enough about the initial tip to find it sufficiently reliable. We do not find Defendant’s flight from his own front yard to his own room to be particularly suspicious even though the yard and his room exist within a high crime area and the yard contained possible drug paraphernalia. We cannot determine, based on the record, whether Defendant willingly opened the door to his room. We cannot know if Defendant consented to be escorted from his room or the temporal proximity of this escort to the ultimate consent to search. From Deputy Henson’s testimony, it is clear that Defendant did not willingly give his wallet to the officer. There is also no testimony regarding whether Defendant was told he did not have to comply with the officer’s request to search his wallet.<\/p>\n

We agree with the trial court that Deputy Henson obtained consent to search the Defendant’s wallet. However, considering the officers’ conduct, and the many unknown facts surrounding this incident, we must conclude that the State failed to meet its burden to prove not only that Defendant gave his consent, but also that the consent was free and voluntary.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defendant’s car was blocked by an officer, and he asked the officer to let him leave, which the officer did not. Instead, he was ordered out of the vehicle, and that became a seizure. State v. Johnson<\/a>, 2009 Ohio 5377, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 4532 (8th Dist. October 8, 2009)*:<\/p>\n

[*P19] However, when Detective Rasberry ordered appellee out of the vehicle, the encounter could no longer be classified as one where an individual would feel free to disregard the officer’s commands or feel free to leave. Detective Rasberry ordered appellee out of the car and opened the door of the car appellant was in. These actions are not indicative of a consensual request. Appellee was seized before Detective Rasberry opened the car door. As such, this interaction must be classified as an investigatory stop.<\/p><\/blockquote>\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-3436","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3436","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=3436"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3436\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3436"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3436"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3436"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}