United States v. Larry Walker
706 F. App'x 152
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- On Sept. 2, 2014, Baton Rouge Officer Dawsey stopped a rented Chrysler 300 for an apparent tinted license-plate cover; three occupants were Glenn (driver), Walker (rear passenger and renter), and James (front passenger).
- Dawsey kept possession of Glenn’s license, the rental agreement (showing Walker as renter), and insurance verification and called for backup instead of running records as he said he would.
- Dawsey told Glenn he had consent to search; Dawsey did not directly ask Walker for consent and acknowledged Glenn lacked authority to consent because Walker was the renter.
- Walker was ordered out of the car, questioned, moved to the rear, and did not have his documents returned; a search then produced numerous items including $95,000 and materials suggesting identity/access-device fraud.
- Walker was arrested and moved to suppress the fruits of the search, arguing his consent (if any) was involuntary; the district court granted the motion as to Walker, suppressing evidence. The government appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Government’s Argument | Walker’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walker’s purported consent to search was voluntary under the Fourth Amendment | Consent was voluntary because occupants were cooperative, Walker had some education, and nothing coercive occurred | Consent was involuntary due to custodial status (not free to leave), coercive police procedures (officer relied on driver’s consent and retained documents), and failure to inform Walker of right to refuse | Court affirmed: consent was not voluntary under the totality of circumstances |
| Whether officer’s reliance on driver’s consent justified searching a renter’s vehicle | Driver consented; search was permissible | Officer knew Walker (renter) was sole authorized consenter and did not actually ask Walker; informing Walker of driver’s consent coerced acquiescence | Court held officer’s reliance on driver’s consent and failure to seek Walker’s actual consent weighed against voluntariness |
| Whether retention of identification and failure to return documents affects voluntariness | Retention was minor and routine, not coercive | Retention of rental agreement and licenses suggested coercion and undermined freedom to refuse | Court found retention supported finding of coercion and weighed against voluntariness |
| Whether district court clearly erred in factual findings based on hearing and video | Video/transcript do not contradict district court; government argued factual errors | District court’s live credibility findings and totality analysis supported suppression | Fifth Circuit: no clear error; affirmed suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (consent exception to warrant requirement; voluntariness judged under totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Rounds, 749 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2014) (consent voluntariness is factual and reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Tompkins, 130 F.3d 117 (5th Cir. 1997) (government bears preponderance burden to prove consent voluntary)
- United States v. Olivier-Becerril, 861 F.2d 424 (5th Cir. 1988) (non-exhaustive list of factors for assessing consent voluntariness)
- United States v. Jaras, 86 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996) (driver’s consent does not automatically authorize search of passenger’s luggage; silence is not consent)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968) (acquiescence to claim of lawful authority is not proof of consent)