Officer\u2019s finding of a screwdriver apparently used to remove car panels was relevant to the scope of his consent search\u2014the screwdriver could be used to open the panel. United States v. Braiske, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4798 (N.D. Iowa January 21, 2010):<\/p>\n
The court finds, however, that the trooper’s discovery of the screwdriver is relevant to the scope of the consent search, and shall overrule the remainder of the first Objection. While searching containers or areas where the object of the search may be present, law enforcement officers may “probe underneath the vehicle[] and open compartments that appear to be false or puncture such compartments in a minimally intrusive manner.” United States v. Ferrer-Montoya, 483 F.3d 565, 568 (8th Cir. 2007). Therefore, evidence indicating that a compartment may be false is relevant to the scope of the search. See id. (officer did not exceed scope of consent to search for drugs by removing screws to access hidden compartment after noticing “scarred screws.”). Before Trooper Andrews pulled back the panel, he discovered a screwdriver in the cargo area of the van. This discovery led him to believe, based on his training and experience, that drugs may be stored in an area that was not accessible without the use of a tool, such as a screwdriver. Accordingly, the court overrules the first Objection to the extent it disputes Judge Scoles’s reliance on the trooper’s discovery of a screw driver in his analysis regarding scope of consent.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
From the USMJ\u2019s opinion: Defendant was not denied the opportunity to withdraw consent because he was placed [locked] in a police car with the windows up, absent some showing that he actually attempted to withdraw his consent. United States v. Braiske, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123655 (N.D. Iowa December 23, 2009).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading