{"id":97,"date":"2007-01-24T12:03:26","date_gmt":"2006-08-10T18:04:05","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2017-09-17T13:42:26","modified_gmt":"2017-09-17T18:42:26","slug":"en-us-150","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=97","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Evidence supports the district court’s findings of consent. Court credits officers’ version that they were not intimidating and defendant was not seized when he consented. United States v. Vera, 457 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. August 9, 2006). Comment: <\/strong>This case would be like a 1,000 others but for the fact that one can read the opinion and see that consent to search a car on the side of the road is mostly a legal fiction. When stopped by the police, with blue lights on, virtually any request, except from the most savvy of drivers (i.e., drug couriers who know about the right to consent or criminal defense lawyers), is going to be acceded to because the entire situation is rife with coercion. Coercion permeates the entire event. The defendant feels he had no choice but to consent, and the police officer relies on that to pull it off. Then, in court, the officer testifies to his nicely asking for consent and the defendant says it was coerced. 99% of the time, the trial and appellate courts go with the officer.<\/p>\n

The fact the defendant was the target of a larger federal investigation when he consented to a search of his car has no bearing on consent. United States v. Lopez-Vargas, 457 F.3d 828 (8th Cir. August 9, 2006).<\/p>\n

During traffic stop, officer saw defendant make a furtive movement toward his back. That justified a frisk during the stop, and crack cocaine was found. United States v. Davis, 457 F.3d 817 (8th Cir. August 9, 2006).*<\/p>\n

Juvenile curfew arrestee was required to strip down to underwear for clothing search before going into jail. This search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Smook v. Minnehaha County, 457 F.3d 806 8th Cir. August 9, 2006).<\/p>\n

Alien smuggling plot was watched with cars in convoy, and defendants, when stopped, were handcuffed to their steering wheels. There was justification for the stops. United States v. Hernandez, 193 Fed. Appx. 338 (5th Cir. August 8, 2006)* (unpublished).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-97","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97","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=97"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":29107,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97\/revisions\/29107"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=97"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=97"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=97"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}