{"id":4009,"date":"2010-07-06T16:33:21","date_gmt":"2010-03-31T05:58:27","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-03-31T06:36:22","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4009","title":{"rendered":"UT: Columbo gambit did not make the consent invalid"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant juvenile effectively consented to a search of his house for psychedelic mushrooms. The officer called him on his cell after having been given the number by another juvenile who consumed them. He got the defendant to meet him at defendant\u2019s house, and he promised not to take him in if he turned over the drugs. \u201cOfficer Hansen told R.A. that he needed the drugs to complete his report and that he would \u2018not take [R.A.] to juvenile detention\u2019 if R.A. came home and gave the drugs to Officer Hansen. After R.A. agreed to leave work and come home, Officer Hansen asked R.A. to clarify whether he was going to turn over the items or if Officer Hansen should \u2018try for a warrant.\u2019 R.A. responded that \u2018he didn’t want [Officer Hansen] to try for a warrant.\u2019\u201d State ex rel. R.A. v. State<\/a>, 2010 UT App 71, 231 P.3d 808 (2010).*<\/p>\n

Another success for the Columbo gambit<\/a> (see here<\/a>, too), although the court does not call it that. See LaFave, The \u201cRoutine Traffic Stop\u201d from Start to Finish: Too Much \u201cRoutine,\u201d Not Enough Fourth Amendment<\/em>, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 1843<\/a>, 1898 (2004) (argues officers can \u201cobviate any and all time and scope limitations\u201d by performing \u201cthe well-known Lt. Columbo gambit [\u2018one more thing …\u2019]\u201d; State v. Thompson<\/a>, 284 Kan. 763, 166 P. 3d 1015, 1027 (2007); Brown v. State<\/a>, 182 P.3d 624, 632 (Alaska App. 2008). Beware of police officers saying \u201cI just need to complete my report\u201d or \u201cThe boys downtown require it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Defendant’s nervousness, an unusual number of air fresheners, and inability to name any passenger was reasonable suspicion. A drug dog was called, and the stop was not unreasonably long. State v. Sherrod<\/a>, 2010 Ohio 1273, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 1085 (11th Dist. March 26, 2010).*<\/p>\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-4009","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4009","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=4009"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4009\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4009"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4009"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4009"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}