CA9: Tough call on consent not being voluntary

Defendant was free to go when she consented to a search of her purse, despite her language difficulties and fact that she was outnumbered by the police. They “asked” “rather than commaned[ed].” United States v. Nieto-Rojas, 470 Fed. Appx. 674 (9th Cir. 2012)*:

The district court held that Appellant was not in custody when her purse was searched, reasoning that the officers were deferential and protective rather than commanding, that they asked rather than demanded to search her purse, that they did not physically control her at any time or display their weapons, and that they told her multiple times that she was free to go when her ride arrived. Appellant argues she was in custody because there were three officers on the scene, she was cited for traffic violations, English was not her native language, she watched the officers conduct an inventory search of the car, her passenger was searched in front of her, and she was told that she could leave when her ride came but she was not told she could leave before. We agree with the district court that Appellant was not in custody. Appellant was told several times she would be free to leave when her ride came. She did not ask to leave before her ride came. It was not unreasonable for the officer to stay with Appellant and her passengers while she waited for a ride, given the dangers of the busy highway.

If the district court had found consent involuntary, likely that would have been affirmed on appeal, given the standard of review.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.