Consent to search would be admissible at trial under F.R.E. 402

Defendant filed a motion in limine to keep out evidence at trial of his consent to search. The District Court finds it admissible to show how the police ended up inside his premises. United States v. Murphy, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62842 (D. Kan. September 1, 2006):

Defendant contends that evidence related to the issue of consent to search is inadmissible pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 402 because it is irrelevant, has already been decided by this court, and would needlessly distract the jury’s attention from the material evidence. No other basis for exclusion is alleged.

Defendant alludes to the fact that during the previous suppression hearing in this case, the primary issue was whether officers illegally entered and searched the house in which defendant resided. The court found, based upon the credibility of the witnesses, that consent was validly given. Various items of clothing incriminatory to the defendant were found in the residence.

This motion is denied. Evidence of consent, which provided the sole justification for the officers’ entry into the home, is a necessary part of the government’s proof of how they came to be in the residence where they found various items linking defendant to the marijuana plot. Such evidence is necessary to complete the story of the alleged crime and is thus relevant to the charged offense.

Defendant’s consent was invalid, but irrelevant. The police had probable cause on the totality of circumstances to search the defendant’s car. Also, the police were not required to search the vehicle immediately hereafter if it is impounded. United States v. Gonzales, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62747 (W.D. Tex. August 30, 2006):

If probable cause justifies an immediate warrantless automobile search, a search of the same vehicle soon thereafter is permissible without a warrant. U.S. v. McSween, 53 F.3d 684, 689 (5th Cir. 1995); see Ross, 456 U.S. at 807 n. 9 (“[I]f an immediate search on the street is permissible without a warrant, a search soon thereafter at the police station is permissible if the vehicle is impounded.”).

Another case received today reaches the same conclusion: State v. Page-Bryant, 2006 N.C. App. LEXIS 1873 (September 5, 2006).

Defendant filed, pursuant to Rule 41(g), a pro se motion for return of cash taken from him at the time of his arrest. The government did not respond, and the motion was granted. United States v. Fossis, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62760 (E.D. Tenn. August 15, 2006).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.