{"id":4636,"date":"2011-01-11T14:14:19","date_gmt":"2010-09-09T07:47:31","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-09-09T07:47:31","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4636","title":{"rendered":"CT: Defendant volunteered officer could “check” car, and this was an invitation to search"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant\u2019s invitation to \u201ccheck\u201d the car (\u201cMorgan then asked whether the defendant had anything \u2018illegal\u2019 in the Altima. The defendant replied that all he had in the car was some beer on the floor by the passenger seat, and told Morgan that he could \u2018go ahead and check. You can check if you want.\u2019\u201d) was a consent to search. Also, two questions did not unduly prolong the stop in this case. The court also [fell for the trap and] applied Meuhler v. Mena<\/a> to a traffic stop to justify the questions, rejecting other state\u2019s cases. There were only two questions, and they were not unreasonable [anyway]. State v. Jenkins<\/a>, 298 Conn. 209, 3 A.3d 806 (2010) [with two dissents here<\/a> and here<\/a>] (revg State v. Jenkins, 104 Conn. App. 417, 934 A.2d 281 (2007)):<\/p>\n

Post-Jimeno<\/a> case law makes clear that, on the basis of the exchange between Morgan and the defendant, Morgan reasonably could have understood the defendant\u2019s invitation to \u201ccheck\u201d the Altima as an invitation to search the interior of the car and unlocked compartments therein, including its center console. First, Morgan\u2019s question about the presence of \u201canything illegal\u201d in the car reasonably is understood as directing the defendant\u2019s attention to contraband such as narcotics or weapons, despite the fact that he did not mention those items specifically. See United States v. Canipe, 569 F.3d 597, 606 (6th Cir.) (\u201c[w]hen [the investigator] asked [the defendant] whether he had anything in his vehicle that might be unlawful or about which he should know, his questioning placed [the defendant] on notice that any unlawful item would be the subject of his search\u201d), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ , 130 S. Ct. 655, 175 L. Ed. 2d 499 (2009); United States v. Snow, 44 F.3d 133, 135 (2d Cir. 1995) (\u201c[i]t is self-evident that a police officer seeking general permission to search a vehicle is looking for evidence of illegal activity\u201d); cf. State v. McConnelee, 690 N.W.2d 27, 31 (Iowa 2004) (\u201c[c]onsidering their conversation was limited to the nature of the leafy substance that was in plain view, we think it unlikely that the defendant would respond to the officer\u2019s comments with an unsolicited invitation to the officer to \u2018search the whole car\u2019”). Moreover, a general consent to search a vehicle \u201creasonably include[s] permission to search any container that might have held illegal objects.\u201d United States v. Canipe, supra, 606; see also United States v. Snow, supra, 135 (\u201c[i]t is just as obvious that such evidence [of illegal activity] might be hidden in closed containers\u201d); United States v. Harris, 928 F.2d 1113, 1118 (11th Cir. 1991) (\u201cthe defendant knew the officer was looking for drugs; therefore, both [the] defendant and the officer would reasonably interpret the consent as constituting consent to search in places where narcotics would reasonably be hidden\u201d); cf. United States v. Neely, 564 F.3d 346, 351 (4th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (containers \u201cphysically part of\u201d area to be searched are included within scope of consent, but consent limited to trunk does not \u201cphysically encompass the interior of [a] vehicle\u201d).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

[Meuhler v. Mena<\/a> is a search warrant case and a detention of a person at the search. A search under a warrant is far different than a highway stop without prior judicial authorization. To me, that makes all the difference. See the dissents.]<\/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-4636","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4636","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=4636"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4636\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4636"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4636"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4636"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}