{"id":6103,"date":"2011-12-19T16:15:29","date_gmt":"2011-10-04T09:07:33","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-10-04T09:07:33","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6103","title":{"rendered":"TX: Consent to search a business for a wanted man did not include bringing in a drug dog"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant gave consent for the police to enter his welding shop to look for a wanted man. While inside, they called for a drug dog to sniff his van parked inside, and the dog alerted. The consent did not include bringing in a drug dog and the trial court was correct in suppressing and the court of appeals in affirming. State v. Weaver<\/a>, 349 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (with dissent here<\/a> and here<\/a>):<\/p>\n

The scope of a search is usually defined by its expressed object. A person is free to limit the scope of the consent that he gives. If police rely on consent as the basis for a warrantless search, \u201cthey have no more authority than they have apparently been given by the consent.\u201d It is therefore \u201cimportant to take account of any express or implied limitations or qualifications attending that consent which establish the permissible scope of the search in terms of such matters as time, duration, area, or intensity.\u201d On the other hand, a person’s silence in the face of an officer’s further actions may imply consent to that further action. The \u201cstandard for measuring the scope of a suspect’s consent under the Fourth Amendment is that of ‘objective’ reasonableness-what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect?\u201d Therefore, a court reviewing the totality of the circumstances of a particular police-citizen interaction does so without regard for the subjective thoughts or intents of either the officer or the citizen. Still, in Texas, the \u201cclear and convincing\u201d burden \u201crequires the prosecution to show the consent given was positive and unequivocal and there must not be duress or coercion, actual or implied.\u201d<\/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-6103","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6103","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=6103"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6103\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6103"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6103"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6103"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}