Defendant didn\u2019t understand enough English to consent to a search. The government carried the burden of consent and didn\u2019t show it. The fact a non-citizen can operate in society doesn\u2019t prove he understands the legal concept to consent to a search. United States v. Barry, 979 F. Supp. 2d 715 (M.D. La. September 25, 2013):
\n<\/p>\n
Though testimony at trial revealed that Barry attended a Madrasa, or Koranic school, for eight years, it did not reveal that such schooling constituted a formal education. Additionally, even assuming arguendo that this could be considered a formal education, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the curriculum studied at the Madrasa would equip Barry with the ability to comprehend legal concepts presented to him in English. Furthermore, the Court finds that there was a sufficient language barrier that would preclude a conclusion that Barry’s consent was voluntary. Though the Government argues that Barry had a sufficient grasp of the English language as evidenced by his presence in the United States since 2003, his operation of businesses both in New York City and Baton Rouge, and his ability to attain a driver’s license, the Court is not convinced that these things taken together allow for a finding that Barry had the requisite command of the English language to voluntarily give his consent. To the contrary, the evidence produced at the hearing demonstrated merely that Barry was capable of responding to routine questions and making basic inquiries. See U.S. v. Isiofia, 370 F.3d 226, 229, 233 (2d Cir. 2004) (deferring to the lower court’s finding that the defendant had trouble speaking and understanding English despite the fact that the arresting officers obtained detailed information from the defendant). Therefore, this prong of the analysis works against a finding that the consent was given voluntarily.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading