{"id":5146,"date":"2011-02-06T10:00:05","date_gmt":"2011-02-02T08:29:48","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-02-02T08:29:48","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5146","title":{"rendered":"W.D.Okla.: Encounter on a bus in OKC led to valid consent"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant was on a cross-country Greyhound trip and several officers boarded the bus in OKC just before it was to depart, and one stood in front of the bus. They talked to passengers and got to defendant in the rear, asked for his ticket and saw he was going from a \u201csource city\u201d (Phoenix). They asked for consent to search his bag, and defendant gave it. Nothing was found. Defendant was nervous and looking at his feet. The officer asked to search his shoes, and defendant handed them over. Drugs were found in the shoes. The search was with valid consent under Bostick<\/a>. United States v. Corral, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8679 (W.D. Okla. January 28, 2011) [Note: I find these cases utterly unbelievable and creation of a complete legal and factual fiction. The bus can\u2019t leave because multiple police got on. They are walking down the aisle talking to everybody. This is inherently coercive of consent, and nothing in the 20 years since Bostick<\/a> was decided has changed this for me. Instead, cases like this just confirm it.]<\/p>\n

Defendant did not show that routine destruction of the video of his stop would effect his case in a \u00a7 2255. United States v. Rumley, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8850 (W.D. Va. January 31, 2011).*<\/p>\n

The USMJ properly concluded that the defendant did not have to be Mirandized prior to consent to a search. United States v. Smith, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9004 (S.D. Ga. January 31, 2011).*<\/p>\n

A USDJ has an independent duty to review the record and recordings of the testimony before the USMJ when credibility of witnesses is challenged. LoConte v. Dugger<\/a>, 847 F.2d 745, 750 (11th Cir. 1988). After that review, the USDJ reaches the same conclusion that consent was valid. United States v. Robinson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8582 (N.D. Ga. January 27, 2011),* R&R United States v. Robinson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140679 (N.D. Ga. November 29, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5146","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5146","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5146"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5146\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5146"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5146"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5146"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}