CA10: While defendant was 100′ away from the search of his truck, he was still free to revoke or limit consent

Just because defendant was 100′ away from the officer at the time of the search of the compartment of his truck, he was not positioned so he could not object to the search if he wanted to limit it or revoke consent. United States v. McWeeny, 454 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2006), is distinguished. That defendant was handcuffed and made to stand where he could not see the search. “[That] court held that the proper inquiry was whether ‘the reasonable person would believe that he or she had no authority to limit or withdraw [the] consent.’” This was different. United States v. Jimenez-Valenia, 419 Fed. Appx. 816 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished)*:

We need not reach the persuasiveness of McWeeny‘s logic because, even in that case, the touchstone of the inquiry was whether the suspect was coerced. Id. Jimenez was not coerced. He was asked to stand one hundred feet away, but assured that he could call out to the officer at any time. He was not handcuffed until after the incriminating compartment was found. Indeed, Jimenez was on notice of the discovery of the compartment and had opportunity to withdraw consent to the search. And Withers did not exceed the scope of Jimenez’s consent. Therefore, the search of the vehicle did not violate the Fourth Amendment.