CA9: It was obvious by signs and longstanding practice that military bases are secure; having to lockup belongings before a consensual interview on the base wasn’t a seizure

Plaintiff was employed by the military, and NCIS had him come to a base for an interview about budgetary matters. The base was secure and everybody entering was subject to search and knew it from the signs. In the interview room area, plaintiff was required to put the contents of his pockets in a lockbox as a condition of the interview. Since he consented to the interview, he consented to that, too, and it was not an unreasonable search and seizure. The investigation and interview resulted in no action against him, so he sued. And lost this issue. Farkas v. Williams, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9490 (9th Cir. May 24, 2016).

The record supported the district court’s determination that defendant’s continued detention after the conclusion of the traffic stop was consensual. Thus, court did not need to reach the question of reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking. Defendant’s subsequent consent to a roadside search of his vehicle was voluntary. Regardless of that, by then officers had probable cause to search his vehicle. A later search at the Department of Public Safety office was also valid. United States v. Beltran, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9445 (5th Cir. May 23, 2016).*