How have courts treated the issue of consent in search and seizure cases?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Chapman, 109 Cal.Rptr. 840, 34 Cal.App.3d 44 (Cal. App. 1973):
People v. Callandret, 274 Cal.App.2d 505, 78 Cal.Rptr. 917, involved the non-consensual search of the back of a truck and did not turn on the issue of the right to stop the truck in the first instance.
Stern v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.App.3d 26, 95 Cal.Rptr. 541, held [34 Cal.App.3d 49] that a consent obtained from a defendant who is being held at gunpoint following an illegal arrest is involuntary.
And finally, People v. Horton, 14 Cal.App.3d 930, 92 Cal.Rptr. 666, simply stands for the proposition that the presence of three young persons in an automobile being driven under non-suspicious circumstances does not justify the stopping of a vehicle.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
