{"id":6084,"date":"2011-09-29T06:05:38","date_gmt":"2011-09-29T06:05:38","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-09-29T06:05:38","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6084","title":{"rendered":"D.Neb.: Defendant handcuffed in backseat of police car yelling to mother not to consent was a denial of consent under Randolph<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"

A defendant handcuffed in the back of a police car yelling to his mother not to consent, which the officers could hear and ignored, was a sufficient objection under Randolph<\/a> to bypassing him to ask his mother for consent. Consent suppressed. United States v. Mass, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108122 (D. Neb. September 16, 2011):<\/p>\n

In this case, Mass, while handcuffed in the back of a police vehicle, was yelling at Gibson not to let the officers inside the residence. The officers heard his objections and Gibson even made light of it to Officer Gassaway. The government argues that in order to have objected to the search, Mass had to have interacted with police directly, to come forward and say \u201cno you cannot search,\u201d which he did not do. The court rejects that argument. \u201c[T]he standard for measuring the scope of a person\u2019s consent under the Fourth Amendment is that of \u2018objective\u2019 reasonableness\u2014what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect?\u201d McMullin<\/a>, 576 F.3d at 815. The court \u201cexamine[s] the totality of the circumstances, which includes the language of a person\u2019s consent and his actions during the officers\u2019 search.\u201d Id. (alteration added). While in the present case Mass did not interact with the officers directly, an objectively reasonable person would understand Mass yelling at his mother not to let the officers inside to mean Mass is objecting to the search. Mass was physically present, expressly refusing consent. The court therefore finds the search to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and the contents of the search should be suppressed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\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-6084","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6084","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=6084"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6084\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6084"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6084"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6084"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}