The DEA was at an oncologist\u2019s office and demanded to see the paid drugs. The officer manager \u201cMs. Posey flatly testified that she never consented to any search, and that she believed that she had no choice but to comply with West’s demands. She said that she was \u2018completely paralyzed, she was so scared.\u2019 [\u00b6] Ms. Posey’s testimony is believed, without qualification. Remarkably, Agent West tends to corroborate Ms. Posey’s testimony that she was extremely frightened during her interaction with these agents. West himself, early in the interview, told Ms. Posey she \u2018looked like a deer in the headlights.\u2019 [\u00b6] … The United States has failed to carry th[e] burden [on consent]. Ms. Posey’s ‘consent’ was not voluntary. Thus, there was no consent at all.\u201d United States v. Sen, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167641 (E.D. Tenn. November 14, 2013).*<\/p>\n
\u201cThe district court correctly concluded that the anonymous letter carries little weight in this analysis\u2014it simply prompted D’Alessandro to visit Defendant’s home. … But the remaining facts\u2014the NPLEx e-mail, Defendant’s history of manufacturing methamphetamine, and, above all, the odor of a methamphetamine precursor\u2014together gave D’Alessandro probable cause to believe that criminal activity was afoot.\u201d There was no clear error in crediting the testimony. United States v. Lykins<\/a>, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23602, 2013 FED App. 0996N (6th Cir. November 21, 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading