\u201cGuerrero argues he was coerced into consenting to the search because the agents continued to ask for consent after he avoided answering the question and they threatened to obtain a search warrant if he did not consent. True, the agents did ask for consent to search the phones more than once. But the mere repeat of the question, without more, is not objectively coercive. Nor is the \u2018threat\u2019 to perform a lawful search objectively coercive.\u201d United States v. Guerrero, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160101 (M.D. Tenn. Sep. 11, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s suggesting to another that drugs should be moved because a search warrant might be imminent justified an obstruction of justice enhancement under USSG \u00a7 3C1.1. United States v. Barker, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 23952 (7th Cir. Sep. 11, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The taking of defendant\u2019s blood by warrant in a DUI case was reasonable. Defendant\u2019s reliance on another state\u2019s appellate court reversed by the state supreme court was not helpful. State v. Simpson, 2023-Ohio-3207 (3d Dist. September 7, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cGuerrero argues he was coerced into consenting to the search because the agents continued to ask for consent after he avoided answering the question and they threatened to obtain a search warrant if he did not consent. True, the agents … Continue reading