The defendant was validly stopped because his vehicle license was not on file. The officer found from the defendant, however, that the vehicle was lawfully registered, and the officer handed the papers back, took two steps back and said he could go. Then he stepped forward to continue the conversation with the defendant. The ensuing consent was valid. United States v. Esquivel-Rios, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53050 (D. Kan. May 17, 2011)*:<\/p>\n
Here, Trooper Dean handed the documents back to defendant, and advised him to travel safely. Dean then stepped back from the van a few steps, then stepped forward and asked defendant if he could ask him some questions. Dean used a normal tone of voice, was not touching his gun or leaning on the van. Defendant responded yes, and Dean then explained that there were large amounts of illegal drugs being transported from the west coast and asked whether defendant had any drugs in the van. When defendant responded no, Dean then asked if he could search the van, and defendant assented three times as the search progressed.<\/p>\n
Defendant argues that the consent was the fruit of the illegal stop. Citing Brown v. Illinois, defendant argues that the consent given was not voluntary because there was insufficient attenuation or break in the causal connection between the illegal detention and the consent. Brown is not applicable to this case, however, as defendant\u2019s consent was not given after an illegal stop. Because the Court has ruled that the initial stop was justified, there is no \u201cpoisoned fruit.\u201d <\/p>\n
. . .<\/p>\n
Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that defendant\u2019s detention was transformed into a consensual encounter when Trooper Dean returned defendant\u2019s paperwork and told him to have a safe trip. Neither Trooper Dean\u2019s testimony, nor the video of the stop, supports the finding that he made any \u201ccoercive show of authority\u201d such that a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave. There is no evidence that the trooper used any force throughout the encounter, brandished his weapon, made any threats or commands, or physically touched defendant. Therefore, the Court finds that defendant\u2019s consent to the search was voluntarily given and was not obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading