{"id":18750,"date":"2015-09-06T13:36:39","date_gmt":"2015-09-06T18:36:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=18750"},"modified":"2015-09-06T13:36:39","modified_gmt":"2015-09-06T18:36:39","slug":"tx1-mere-acquiescence-can-still-be-consent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=18750","title":{"rendered":"TX1: Mere acquiescence can still be consent[!]"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>While the Texas standard of consent is clear and convincing evidence, \u201ceven a finding of \u2018\u201c[m]ere acquiescence\u201d may constitute a finding of consent.\u2019 Meekins, 340 S.W.3d at 463-64.\u201d [apparently even though SCOTUS says no]. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.search.txcourts.gov\/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=aff751cb-22f4-47e1-a3cc-dc09620b0134&#038;MediaID=aab3aee5-1422-4439-a924-c17935838205&#038;coa=%22%20+%20this.CurrentWebState.CurrentCourt%20+%20@%22&#038;DT=Opinion\">Hutchins v. State<\/a>, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 9430 (Tex. App. \u2013 Houston (1st Dist.) September 3, 2015) (<a href=\"http:\/\/www.search.txcourts.gov\/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=454532e2-7ca0-4817-9e22-eb95852576f7&#038;MediaID=fcab583e-40cc-4505-bca7-00390c2af5de&#038;coa=%22%20+%20this.CurrentWebState.CurrentCourt%20+%20@%22&#038;DT=Opinion\">dissent here<\/a>).<\/p>\n<p>Even if the stop was pretextual, it had a factual basis so it\u2019s valid. The patdown was valid and led to an immediate plain feel which was also valid. United States v. Pacheco, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117786 (S.D.Ohio September 3, 2015).* <\/p>\n<p>A silver Camry with Pennsylvania license plates was seen involved in a freeway shooting. When the car matching the description was found, that was reasonable suspicion. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.tsc.state.tn.us\/sites\/default\/files\/volpejosephjohnopn.pdf\">State v. Volpe<\/a>, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 720 (September 3, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>While the Texas standard of consent is clear and convincing evidence, \u201ceven a finding of \u2018\u201c[m]ere acquiescence\u201d may constitute a finding of consent.\u2019 Meekins, 340 S.W.3d at 463-64.\u201d [apparently even though SCOTUS says no]. Hutchins v. State, 2015 Tex. App. &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=18750\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[24,86,35],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18750","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-consent","category-pretext","category-reasonable-suspicion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18750","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=18750"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18750\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18751,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18750\/revisions\/18751"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=18750"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=18750"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=18750"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}