Army: Consent to search was mere acquiescence to a claim of authority

Defendant’s consent to search his apartment was obtained after telling him that it was based on the death of his roommate in the parking lot. He was in “custody,” and this was mere acquiescence to a claim of authority. “In conclusion, we determine this situation is akin to the scenario envisioned in Mil. R. Evid. 314(e)(4), specifically ‘[m]ere submission to the color of authority of personnel performing law enforcement duties or acquiescence in an announced or indicated purpose to search.’ Considering the totality of the circumstances, we find the military judge abused his discretion in finding that appellant freely and voluntarily consented to the search of his apartment on 23 December 2016.” United States v. Hale, 2021 CCA LEXIS 274 (Army Ct. Crim. App. June 3, 2021).

Defendant was seized by being told not to run and that the police had dogs, and it was without reasonable suspicion of any wrongdoing. The fact the neighborhood was known for drug dealing says nothing about defendant. United States v. Celes, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105596 (E.D. Cal. June 4, 2021).

Defendant has no standing to contest a search of his co-conspirator’s house. United States v. Pelayo, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105670 (W.D. Wash. June 4, 2021).

Police got a search warrant for defendant’s car in late May 2019 for three controlled buys from the car in the first two weeks of May. The warrant wasn’t executed for nine days. It wasn’t stale. Vehicles are mobile and not fixed like a house. The officers tried to find it, and the delay did not make it stale. State v. Waters, 2021 Del. Super. LEXIS 455 (June 2, 2021).

This entry was posted in Consent, Seizure, Staleness, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.