The officer did not prolong the stop. Defendant was stopped for following a tractor-trailer too close that she came up on at high speed right in front of the officer. When she was looking for her papers on the car, her gun fell out of the glove compartment. The check of the DL and firearm took 8 minutes, and both came up clean. Then the officer was writing a warning ticket and asked for consent. Her response \u201cMmm mmm\u201d to a request to search her car was interpreted by the officer and the court as consent. That’s how she answered most questions on the video. United States v. Ferguson, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87192 (S.D. Ga. May 29, 2013):<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
As before, the Court credits Deputy Land’s testimony. Specifically, the Court credits his testimony that, in response to his question, “You don’t have a problem if I search your vehicle, do you?” Ferguson responded in the negative by verbally stating “Mmm mmm,” indicating that she did not have a problem with a search. (FTR 2:10:06-10:17; see also doc. no. 37, p. 2.) The Court notes that it is somewhat unclear to what extent Ferguson truly contests this fact, given that she acknowledges that she provided a verbal response of some type but simply argues that it the response was “inarticulate” and thus insufficient to provide valid consent. (See doc. no. 34-1, p. 12; see also doc. no. 51, pp. 3-4.) In particular, Ferguson appears to assign great significance to the fact that she did not speak either the words “yes” or “no” in response to Deputy Land’s question, but instead responded with a sound that she describes as “inarticulate.” (See generally doc. no. 51.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading