CA4: Circumstances were not so coecive to nullify consent
FourthAmendment.com:
Consent that defendant contended was a result of coercive circumstances was rejected. On the totality, it was still consent. United States v. Harvell, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 22887 (4th Cir. November 3, 2008)* (unpublished):
Harvell argues that her consent could not have been voluntary because the pat-down search in the [*3] parking lot was humiliating and degrading, that she suggested going into the bathroom to protect her privacy, and that her purported consent was simply the result of coercive circumstances. However, Harvell produced no evidence at the suppression hearing to counter the officers’ testimony that she consented to a search of her person in the parking lot and volunteered to go into the restaurant bathroom with Detective Robbins for a more extensive search, nor was there any evidence of coercion or intimidation by Turrentine or Robbins. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in determining that Harvell freely consented to the search, and in denying the motion to suppress.
Defendant had no expectation of privacy in an inoperable vehicle parked in his mother’s driveway that he had no possessory interest in. United States v. Williams, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90415 (D. S.C. November 6, 2008).*