California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Armenta, 22 Cal.App.3d 823, 99 Cal.Rptr. 736 (Cal. App. 1972):
3 While sticking to our decision not to discuss defendant's first two claims of error, it seems obvious that most of the articles seized in the apartment were found after a consent entry into the bedroom where or from where they were in plain sight. The only argument in favor of suppression which defendant is able to make is a request that we overrule the innumerable California cases which have held that a consent is valid even if not preceded by advice that the consent may be refused. (People v. Thomas, 12 Cal.App.3d 1102, 1107, fn. 1, 91 Cal.Rptr. 867.)
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.