State v. Olaf Hanson
Background
- Hanson was stopped for a broken tail lamp and expired registration; while pulling over he reached under/behind the seats and gave conflicting explanations for his actions.
- Officer asked Hanson to exit the vehicle, asked “What’s under the seat?” and said “You might as well tell me, I’m gonna go look.”
- Officer then asked for consent to search the entire vehicle; Hanson consented and officers found marijuana, a handgun, and drug paraphernalia.
- Hanson moved to suppress the vehicle search evidence, arguing his consent was involuntary because the officer falsely claimed authority to search.
- District court denied suppression, finding consent voluntary under the totality of the circumstances; Hanson appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent to search was voluntary | State: Consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances | Hanson: Officer’s statement “I’m gonna go look” falsely claimed authority and therefore vitiated consent | Court: Consent voluntary; officer’s statement reasonably read as intent to look, not a false representation of legal authority |
| Whether officer’s statement amounted to a false claim of a warrant/search authority | State: Statement could mean a limited visual check, not an assertion of lawful authority to search | Hanson: A typical person would interpret it as an assertion of authority to search the car | Court: Under facts, reasonable person could have understood it as a mere announcement of intent to look; not a Bumper-type false warrant claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (officer’s false assertion of a warrant negates consent)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntariness of consent judged under totality of circumstances)
- New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (vehicle interior protected from unreasonable intrusions)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (scope of consent measured by what a reasonable person would understand)
- State v. Metzger, 144 Idaho 397 (officer may lawfully view vehicle interior from doorway/with flashlight)
- State v. Jaborra, 143 Idaho 94 (factors for voluntariness inquiry)
- State v. Smith, 144 Idaho 482 (recognizing Bumper rule under Idaho law)