Page 46 - TPA Journal March April 2022

whether reasonable suspicion exists, an officer’s concluding that he freely and voluntarily consented
inferences based on knowledge gained through to the search of his vehicle. A search conducted
specialized training and experience routinely play pursuant to consent is excepted from the Fourth
a significant role in law enforcement investigations. Amendment’s warrant and probable cause
Kansas v. Glover, 140 S. Ct. 1183, 1189-1190 requirements. Whether consent was given
(2020). The district court did not err finding voluntarily is a question of fact reviewed under a
reasonable suspicion justified the initial stop by clearly erroneous standard. Bass argues he was
Officer Boudet. coerced to open his trunk, and at most, he only
consented to a search of his trunk. Once general
Prolonged Detention consent is given, police may search all containers
found within the vehicle unless the consent is
Bass next argues that, even assuming there was a expressly limited by the suspect. Absent any
valid investigatory detention, it was unreasonably limitation placed by the
prolonged in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
An investigatory detention should not last longer 2 Despite Bass’s argument that he never consented
than necessary to either verify or dispel the to a search of the vehicle, consent is not
officer’s original suspicion “unless further dispositive. This court need not determine whether
reasonable suspicion, supported by articulable the search exceeded the scope of Bass’s consent
facts, emerges.” There is no “constitutional because police had probable cause to arrest Bass
stopwatch” on investigatory stops. Rather, the and search him and his vehicle incident to arrest.
court assesses whether police “diligently pursued a And even if probable cause for Bass’s arrest did
means of investigation that was likely to confirm not exist, the search of his car was reasonable
or dispel their suspicions quickly.” under the automobile exception to the Fourth
Amendment’s warrant requirement. A search
Officer Boudet questioned Bass about his activity incident to a lawful arrest is a well-recognized
for the first five minutes of their interaction. Within exception to the warrant requirement. When an
roughly the first minute of questioning, Bass told arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting
Officer Boudet that he had illegal CDs in his car. officer to search the person arrested in order to
Bass acknowledged he was selling CDs and DVDs, remove any weapons that the latter might seek to
that he didn’t have any identification, he didn’t own use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. The
the vehicle he was driving, and he had previously scope of a search incident to an arrest is broad
been charged with illegally selling CDs. The enough to include the interior of a vehicle if the
combined totality of this information justified arrestee was a recent occupant of the vehicle and it
Officer Boudet’s continued investigation and the is “reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the
questioning was not unreasonable. Officer Boudet crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.”
did not unreasonably prolong Bass’s investigatory
stop. suspect, consent to search a car will support an
officer’s search of unlocked containers within it.
Consent (ed. Note: watch for this. When relying on
consent, it’s probably best to document [or video]
Bass next argues that the district court erred by the fact that no limitation of the consent occurred.)

42 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal