\u201cLet’s step inside and talk for a second\u201d did not lead to consent. \u201cAlthough the language itself implies some joint or equal action, it also implies some level of insistence. See Williams v. United States, 263 F.2d 487, 849 (D.C. Cir. 1959) (finding a person’s failure to object to an officer’s statement \u2018I don’t want to discuss my business out in the hallway, let’s go inside where its private\u2019 was not a consent to search); United States v. Roldan, No. 97 CR. 567(JFK), 1997 WL 767564, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 1978) (finding an officer’s use of the imperative form \u2018let’s look in the bag\u2019 was a command and the defendant’s acquiescence did not constitute consent to search the bag). In context, that implied insistence combined with the lack of opportunity to object gives the statement the effect of a command. Barner had no time to respond either affirmatively or negatively before the officers advanced.\u201d United States v. Hatcher, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33792 (N.D. Iowa Feb. 5, 2020), adopted, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32777 (N.D. Iowa Feb. 26, 2020).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cLet’s step inside and talk for a second\u201d did not lead to consent. \u201cAlthough the language itself implies some joint or equal action, it also implies some level of insistence. See Williams v. United States, 263 F.2d 487, 849 (D.C. … Continue reading