614 F. App'x 748
5th Cir.2015Background
- Robertson, a convicted felon, was stopped for speeding in Baton Rouge; officer Spelying smelled marijuana on Robertson and in the vehicle.
- Officer discovered Robertson’s license was suspended and learned both occupant men were felons.
- Spelying returned rental paperwork, told Robertson he would not issue a ticket, and then asked, “before you go… Can I search your vehicle before you go?” Robertson consented.
- Search revealed a partially smoked marijuana cigar and two handguns in the center console; both men claimed a gun and were arrested.
- Robertson moved to suppress, arguing his consent was not voluntary; the district court granted the motion. The government appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent to search was voluntary under the Fourth Amendment | Robertson: consent was coerced because officer used a coercive phrase (“before you go”), did not tell him he was free to leave, and had implied leverage by not issuing a ticket | Government: Robertson voluntarily consented after being asked; similar requests have been upheld in other cases | Consent was not voluntary; district court’s factual findings upheld under clear-error review |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Iraheta, 764 F.3d 455 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Dilley, 480 F.3d 747 (5th Cir.) (consent voluntariness is a factual finding reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Hearn, 563 F.3d 95 (5th Cir.) (clear-error standard and when court may defer to district court credibility findings)
- United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420 (5th Cir.) (deference to district court that observed witness demeanor at suppression hearing)
- United States v. Olivier-Becerril, 861 F.2d 424 (5th Cir.) (six-factor totality-of-circumstances test for voluntariness of consent)
- United States v. Zavala, 541 F.3d 562 (5th Cir.) (factual findings are not clearly erroneous if plausible in light of the record)