M.D.Tenn.: Repeatedly re-asking for consent to search cell phone doesn’t make it coercive

“Guerrero argues he was coerced into consenting to the search because the agents continued to ask for consent after he avoided answering the question and they threatened to obtain a search warrant if he did not consent. True, the agents did ask for consent to search the phones more than once. But the mere repeat of the question, without more, is not objectively coercive. Nor is the ‘threat’ to perform a lawful search objectively coercive.” United States v. Guerrero, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160101 (M.D. Tenn. Sep. 11, 2023).

Defendant’s suggesting to another that drugs should be moved because a search warrant might be imminent justified an obstruction of justice enhancement under USSG § 3C1.1. United States v. Barker, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 23952 (7th Cir. Sep. 11, 2023).*

The taking of defendant’s blood by warrant in a DUI case was reasonable. Defendant’s reliance on another state’s appellate court reversed by the state supreme court was not helpful. State v. Simpson, 2023-Ohio-3207 (3d Dist. September 7, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Consent, Drug or alcohol testing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.