U.S. v. Banks

2 Citing cases

  1. U.S. v. Olivarria

    781 F. Supp. 2d 387 (N.D. Miss. 2011)   Cited 2 times

    The Court finds, in light of all the circumstances, that a reasonable officer would have taken the Defendant's statements as consent to search the vehicle. See UnitedStates v. Shannon, 21 F.3d 77, 82 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1994) ("Shannon's identification of the exact location of the gun in the room may have led the officers to reasonably believe in good faith that Shannon had consented to their entry into the motel room and their seizure of the gun"); United States v. Banks, 2002 WL 1611642, at *5-6 (E.D. La. July 19, 2002), aff'd, 115 F. App'x 698 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that Defendant's statement "I have a nine under the mattress" to be effective consent to search for and retrieve gun under the mattresss). B. Was the Consent Voluntary?

  2. U.S. v. Cota-Lopez

    358 F. Supp. 2d 579 (W.D. Tex. 2002)   Cited 12 times
    Holding dog sniff outside the front door of a private residence was not a search

    Consent to a warrantless search may be implied by the circumstances surrounding the search or by a person's failure to object to the search. See U.S. v. Varona-Algos, 819 F.2d 81, 83 (5th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by, Jaras, 86 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996); Johnson v. Smith County, 834 F.2d 479, 480 (5th Cir. 1987) (evidence was sufficient to establish that homeowner at least implicitly consented to warrantless search of home by armed police officers, notwithstanding homeowner's claim that there was no indication as to who within home gave negative response when police officers asked "Do you mind us looking?"); see also U.S. v. Banks, 2002 WL 1611642, *5 (E.D.La. 2002) (defendant's statement to law enforcement officers that he had a handgun underneath his bed mattress was an implied consent to search, where it was objectively reasonable for officers to believe they had defendant's consent to search for and seize gun, and defendant did not object to search). However, the government's burden of proving voluntariness of consent "cannot be discharged by showing no more than acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority."