Defendant\u2019s \u201cbelligerent and assertive conduct\u201d showed consent was voluntary on the totality. United States v. Claus, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93391 (W.D. Pa. September 8, 2010):<\/p>\n
He demonstrably knew how to invoke his right to refuse consent (and had previously done so), yet he ultimately made a knowing and informed decision to sign a written consent form and permit a search. Indeed, Dunlevy and Claus negotiated a number of the terms under which the search would be conducted. Claus’ belligerent and assertive conduct throughout the incident demonstrated that his consent was not the product of intimidation by officers. The Court recognizes that the actions of the officers in this case were somewhat aggressive and that they certainly attempted to influence and persuade Claus to obtain his consent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The San Francisco strip search case on remand: Bull v. City and County of San Francisco, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93493 (N.D. Cal. September 8, 2010), on remand from Bull v. City and County of San Francisco<\/a>, 595 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc): <\/p>\n
Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as to those members of the class who were searched once pursuant to the Classification Search Policy and then placed into safety cells. With the exception of that caveat, the Court’s prior summary judgment ruling on the Safety Cell Search Policy stands.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Defendant\u2019s 2255 claim that the police officer took his pulse during the traffic stop has no support in the record from 11 years ago, and it is insufficient to get IAC relief. United States v. Olivera, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93235 (E.D. Cal. September 8, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading