Page 42 - November December 2020 TPA Journal

The MJ found that Officer Rodriguez had reason- cluded that, based on the totality of the circum-
able suspicion to extend the traffic stop and that stances, Soriano’s consent was voluntary. We
the totality of the evidence weighed in favor of a agree and will discuss each factor in turn.
finding that Soriano voluntarily consented to the
search. The district court adopted the MJ’s report A. Voluntariness of Custodial Status
and denied Soriano’s motion to suppress. Voluntariness of custodial status turns on whether
a reasonable person in the defendant’s position
… would feel free to terminate the encounter.
Whether an investigating officer has returned a
The sole issue on appeal is whether the district defendant’s license and documents and has pro-
court erred in concluding that Soriano voluntarily vided the citation as promised are relevant to
consented to the search of his vehicle. We hold whether a reasonable person would feel free to ter-
that it did not. minate the encounter.
… After Soriano provided Officer Rodriguez with his
If a factual finding is “plausible in light of the vehicle’s registration approximately four minutes
record as a whole,” it is not clearly erroneous. into the encounter, she continued to retain posses-
… sion of the registration throughout the period that
A warrantless search is presumptively unreason- she questioned Soriano and at the time that he con-
able, subject to certain exceptions, such as volun- sented to the search. She also informed Soriano
tary consent. “The voluntariness of consent is a that she intended to issue him a citation for driving
question of fact to be determined from a totality of without a license, yet she had not issued that cita-
the circumstances.” To evaluate the voluntariness tion as of the time that he consented to the search.
of consent, we consider the following six factors: A reasonable person in Soriano’s position “might
(emphasis by ed.) “(1) the voluntariness of the not have felt free to leave until he was issued the
defendant’s custodial status; (2) the presence of promised [citation] and his [registration] had been
coercive police procedures; (3) the extent and returned.” Id. Accordingly, it was not clearly erro-
level of the defendant’s cooperation with the neous for the district court to weigh this factor
police; (4) the defendant’s awareness of his right against a finding of voluntariness.
to refuse to consent; (5) the defendant’s education B. Presence of Coercive Police Procedures
and intelligence; and (6) the defendant’s belief Soriano contends that Officer Rodriguez
that no incriminating evidence will be found.” employed coercive police procedures when she
suggested that Soriano was not being truthful,
Here, the district court determined that three fac- repeatedly asked whether he had any illegal sub-
tors weighed against a finding of voluntariness: stances, and deceived him by telling him that
Soriano was involuntarily detained; Officer Officer Ramirez agreed that her questions were
Rodriguez did not inform him of his right to refuse clear. The district court concluded that no coercive
consent; and Soriano likely believed that incrimi- police procedures were utilized in obtaining
nating evidence would be found. It also found that Soriano’s consent to search his vehicle. Although
three factors favored a finding of voluntariness: Officer Rodriguez pointed out the inconsistencies
the lack of coercive police procedures; the extent in Soriano’s statements, the district court found
of Soriano’s cooperation; and Soriano’s education that her statements and questions were not intend-
and intelligence. Although the factors were essen- ed to trick him into consenting. The district court
tially even on both sides, the district court con- also noted that Soriano failed to point to case law
indicating that confronting a defendant with

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