The record supports the trial court\u2019s finding that the defendant consented despite his claim that there was a language barrier. Yes, arrest is somewhat coercive, but defendant still consented. United States v. Silva-Arzeta, 602 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2010):<\/p>\n
Thus, the basis of Mr. Silva-Arzeta’s claim of coercion amounts to simply his being arrested and handcuffed. We recognize that arresting and handcuffing are coercive acts. But the consent of a handcuffed arrestee may well be voluntary. See Dozal, 173 F.3d at 796 (“Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedent establishes that consent to search may be voluntary even though the consenting party is being detained at the time consent is given.” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)); Carpenter v. United States, 463 F.2d 397, 401 (10th Cir. 1972) (consent voluntary after being arrested and handcuffed); United States v. Strache, 202 F.3d 980, 986 (7th Cir. 2000) (voluntary consent by defendant who had been handcuffed for 20 minutes). We affirm the district court’s ruling that Mr. Silva-Arzeta’s consent to the search was valid.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The record supported the trial court\u2019s finding that defendant consented. His post-arrest statements supported the finding of consent. United States v. Grant, 375 Fed. Appx. 79 (2d Cir. 2010) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n
Defense counsel was not ineffective for not appealing the search issue. Defendant was passed out at the wheel of his car in a traffic lane when the light turned green. The officer could open the door to see what was going on since defendant did not respond to him, and the crack cocaine was in plain view. United States v. Jackson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40917 (E.D. Pa. April 27, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading