{"id":6984,"date":"2012-04-16T12:35:58","date_gmt":"2012-04-16T12:35:58","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-04-16T12:35:58","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6984","title":{"rendered":"E.D.Tenn.: Consent to search for stolen guns can go anywhere a gun could be hidden"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>\u201cEven if an individual is found to have validly consented, he can still challenge a search on the basis that it exceeded the scope of his consent. See <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=7243005192704132852&amp;q=569+F.3d+597&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,44\">United States v. Canipe<\/a>, 569 F.3d 597, 604 (6th Cir. 2009).\u201d Quoting <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=12699710100287162792&amp;q=378+F.3d+584&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,44\">United States v. Carter<\/a>, 378 F.3d 584, 587 (6th Cir. 2004), also on consent in general:  \u201c\u2018Fundamentally, Carter asks us to hold as a matter of law that consent must be given verbally, perhaps by some \u2018magic words\u2019 formula. This we decline to do. Although a man\u2019s home is his castle, trumpets need not herald an invitation. The police may be kept out or invited in as informally as any other guest. Carter invited the police in and cannot undo his act in court.\u2019 Id. at 589.\u201d Defendant was actually showing the police he wanted to cooperate, so the consent was voluntary. Since the object of the search was a stolen firearm, the search could be anywhere the gun might be found. United States v. Murphy, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52246 (E.D. Tenn. March 26, 2012), R&amp;R 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52245 (E.D. Tenn. January 10, 2012).*<\/p>\n<p>The officer applying for the telephonic search warrant was not the officer with the most information, but that did not make his hearsay application void. The Franks issue fails: \u201cNone of the claimed omissions, if included in the affidavit, would have negated the probable cause determination.\u201d Some of the claimed omissions were actually incriminating. United States v. Salisbury, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51998 (D. Nev. February 3, 2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6984\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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-6984","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6984","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=6984"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6984\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6984"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6984"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6984"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}