CA9: To withdraw consent, one must object to the officers

Based on the testimony of the officers, it was apparent defendant consented to a search of his car, and then he did nothing to withdraw consent. Then the officers could use a drug dog. United States v. Nothstein, 424 Fed. Appx. 645 (9th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).*

There was probable cause for the search of defendant’s car, so the automobile exception applied. United States v. Marcum, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31802 (E.D. Ky. March 4, 2011).*

There was probable cause for issuance of the search warrant in this case based on two CIs. State v. Brown, 2011 Ohio 1461, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 1260 (3d Dist. March 28, 2011).*

On the totality of circumstances, it appears that the defendant was not “seized” when he and two others were talking to three officers. If it was a seizure, there was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Hines, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32224 (S.D. Ga. March 24, 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.