Page 47 - TPA Journal March April 2022

The record does not support that Bass expressly review of a denial of a suppression motion after a
limited his consent to the trunk. hearing with live testimony, there is no clear error
in the district court’s finding that Bass voluntarily
Officer Boudet testified that, when Bass opened his consented to the search of his car. Therefore, under
trunk, a spindle of CDs labeled with permanent the totality of the circumstances specific to this
marker were in plain view. When paired with his case, the consensual car search did not violate
knowledge about the prior complaints against Bass Bass’s Fourth Amendment rights. Because there is
for illegally selling CDs and Bass’s admission that no clear error, we affirm the district court’s finding
he was previously convicted for similar conduct, that Bass’s consent was voluntary.
Officer Boudet had probable cause to believe that
Bass was committing a crime and make an arrest. Miranda
At the suppression hearing, Bass clarified he was
The Government must prove Bass voluntarily seeking to suppress statements he made early in his
consented to the search by a preponderance of the encounter with Officer Boudet about selling CDs
evidence. We use a multi-factor test to determine and being on parole. Miranda’s procedural
whether consent was voluntary, in which we safeguards attach “only where there has been such
consider: a restriction on a person’s freedom as to render him
(1) the voluntariness of the defendant’s custodial ‘in custody.’” To ascertain whether an individual
status; was in custody, we examine all of the
(2) the presence of coercive police procedures; circumstances surrounding the interrogation, but
(3) the extent and level of the defendant’s ultimately ask “whether there [was] a ‘formal arrest
cooperation with the police; or restraint on freedom of movement’ of the degree
(4) the defendant’s awareness of his right to refuse associated with a formal arrest.”
consent;
(5) the defendant’s education and intelligence; and, The district court found that the statements made
(6) the defendant’s belief that no incriminating by Bass were made at a time when the encounter
evidence will be found. was still characterized as a Terry stop, and Bass
volunteered this information when he was not in
Several factors support a finding of voluntariness. custody. Bass freely shared the information with
Bass was calm and cooperative when speaking with Officer Boudet. It is clear from the record that Bass
Officer Boudet. The interaction was cordial, and was not in custody within the meaning of Miranda.
the record does not indicate that Officer Boudet Because “[a]pproaching someone who is in a
used verbal threats or intimidation to obtain Bass’s public place … and asking questions does not
consent to search the vehicle. The record constitute a seizure,” Bass was not seized under
demonstrates that Bass was aware he had the right the Fourth Amendment, and thus not in custody
to refuse consent. Because no single factor is under the Fifth Amendment, when he made these
dispositive and because several factors supported a statements.
finding of voluntariness, we conclude that, viewing
these facts in the light most favorable to the Reviewing the totality of the circumstances, we
Government and under the highly deferential find the officers had probable cause to arrest Bass
standard which we are compelled to apply on and search his vehicle subsequent to arrest.

March-April 2022 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 43