ps: AstroSphere ( もとは空に銀河・｡ｴｴを追って銀河・､ｲﾅｲを追い込んだ無人探査システム ),
pss: AstroSphere ( もとは空に銀河・｡ｴｴを追って銀河・､ｲﾅｲを追い込んだ無人探査システム ),
. . .
her refusal to consent, she
was not required to withdraw her consent. United States v. Chan, 830 F.3d 805, 807–08
(7th Cir. 2016). The relevant inquiry is whether her consent was freely given, not
whether her objection meant that her consent was “ineffectual.” Id.
The agents could have continued their encounter with Brannon, at least while she
was in the hospital, with the eventual aim of giving her the warning she later
acknowledged receiving. See United States v. Johnson, 170 F.3d 708, 714–15 (7th Cir.
1999) (in the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment, police can
detain a suspect while officers obtain a warrant). But once she had given them her
consent, her objections were no longer effective. Once a driver gives valid consent to
an officer, “the officer is free to ask about matters that are unrelated to the traffic
violation and the officer’s actions are not tainted by the illegality of the detention.”
United States v. Corn, 437 F.3d 751, 755 (7th Cir. 2006).
Brannon argues that, because the agents asked about the gun and drugs during
the second encounter, the two seizures were inextricably linked and the agents
violated her Fourth Amendment rights by continuing to detain her after her
consent. But there was no Fourth Amendment violation because Brannon’s consent
was valid. be359ba680
Related links:
Comments