\u201cIn determining voluntariness, the following facts are considered: (1) the person’s age, intelligence and education; (2) whether she was advised of her constitutional rights; (3) how long she was detained before she gave her consent; (4) whether her consent was immediate, or was prompted by repeated requests by the authorities; (5) whether any physical coercion was used; (6) whether she was in police custody when she gave her consent; and (7) the intoxication of the individual.\u201d Defendant said she was under the influence of Vicodin, but there is no evidence that she was intoxicated. United States v. Wiley, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119037 (N.D. Ind. November 8, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant consented to go to the police station, and that contributed to the finding of voluntariness. United States v. Barber, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118608 (S.D. W.Va. November 8, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Stop for an open container was valid, and it was in a high-crime area the officer normally patrolled. Defendant\u2019s furtive movement justified a patdown. United States v. Terry, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118782 (W.D. Pa. November 8, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s claims of IAC for defense counsel at the suppression hearing was unavailing. The things that petitioner claimed would have aided the court wouldn\u2019t, so no IAC. United States v. Alexander, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118804 (W.D. Wis. November 8, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading