{"id":44966,"date":"2020-08-15T11:00:05","date_gmt":"2020-08-15T16:00:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=44966"},"modified":"2020-08-15T11:00:05","modified_gmt":"2020-08-15T16:00:05","slug":"ca6-ptf-still-doesnt-show-a-question-of-fact-whether-he-consent-to-officer-looking-in-his-wallet","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=44966","title":{"rendered":"CA6: Ptf still doesn’t show a question of fact whether he consent to officer looking in his wallet"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Plaintiff\u2019s response \u201cabsolutely\u201d during a frisk to looking in his wallet was reasonably determined to be consent. His argument over the words used didn\u2019t create a sufficient question of fact. Gale v. O’Donohue<\/a>, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 25752 (6th Cir. Aug. 11, 2020) (\u201cGale’s linguistic argument boils down to whether Gale’s word choice in this case, without context, creates a dispute on his consent to the search and seizure. We find it does not. It may be that, without context, an affirmative answer\u2014e.g. “absolutely”\u2014in response to the type of question posed here \u2018is ambiguous[.]\u2019 United States v. Price, 54 F.3d 342, 346 (7th Cir. 1995) (explaining that \u2018[s]ure\u2019 in response to \u2018[d]o you mind[?]\u2019 is \u2018capable of being interpreted as either \u201cGo ahead\u201d or \u201cNo way\u201d\u2019). An ordinary person could understand Gale’s response \u2018absolutely\u2019 to mean \u2018absolutely [I mind]\u2019 and as a refusal to consent. But an ordinary person could also interpret Gale’s response \u2018absolutely\u2019 to mean \u2018absolutely [you may search my wallet]\u2019 or \u2018absolutely [not, I don’t mind]\u2019 and as consent.\u201d).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 2017 affidavit for the order for CSLI showed a substantial basis for probable cause. United States v. Alvarez, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146084 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Plaintiff\u2019s response \u201cabsolutely\u201d during a frisk to looking in his wallet was reasonably determined to be consent. His argument over the words used didn\u2019t create a sufficient question of fact. Gale v. O’Donohue, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 25752 (6th Cir. … Continue reading →<\/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":[84,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-44966","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cell-site-location-information","category-consent"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44966","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=44966"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44966\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":44967,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44966\/revisions\/44967"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=44966"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=44966"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=44966"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}