Page 44 - November December 2020 TPA Journal

familiarity with law enforcement procedures and dog right now from the checkpoint, do you think it
its impact on his actions is unclear, the will alert?” Soriano responded, “No, you can
Government has not shown that the MJ clearly bring him.” Likewise, the district court opined that
erred in determining that this factor weighed at the time of consent, Soriano had already opened
against voluntariness. his suitcase to show the officers its contents and
E. Education and Intelligence that it was possible that he believed a search
The district court found that Soriano’s education, would not reveal the cocaine because he had
although limited, did not indicate that he was sus- already exposed the contents of the suitcase.
ceptible to coercion. The court further observed Nevertheless, the district court still agreed with
that Soriano’s previous interactions with police the MJ’s conclusion that this factor weighed “mar-
indicated that he was not a newcomer to the law. ginally” against a finding of voluntariness given
Moreover, Soriano’s helpful demeanor during the the lack of evidence on this point. Because this
stop, his interaction with the police, and his testi- conclusion is plausible given the limited record,
mony indicated that he was at least of average there was no clear error.
intelligence. On these grounds, the district court
concluded that this factor weighed “marginally in Our review of the video, the transcript, and the
favor of voluntariness.” We agree. complete record confirms that the district court
Soriano was 37 years old at the time of his arrest carefully analyzed the controlling six-factor bal-
and had completed six years of formal education ancing test in view of the evidence presented to it.
in Mexico. Officer Rodriguez testified that Its analysis was methodical and not skewed one
Soriano seemed able to understand and answer her way or the other. In sum, the district court’s analy-
questions. Our review of the transcript of the traf- sis of the consent factors was “plausible in light of
fic stop confirms that Soriano was responsive to the record as a whole.” Accordingly, we hold that
Officer Rodriguez’s questions and understood the the district court did not clearly err in concluding
import of the traffic stop. For these reasons, we that Soriano voluntarily consented to the search of
conclude that the district court’s finding that his vehicle. The district court’s denial of Soriano’s
Soriano was at least of “average intelligence” was motion to suppress is AFFIRMED.
plausible. Accordingly, its determination that this
factor “weighs marginally in favor of voluntari- U.S. v. Soriano, No. 19-50832, 5th Cir., Sept. 18,
ness” was not clear error. 2020.
F. Belief that No Incriminating Evidence will be ****************************************
Found **************************
An awareness or belief that no incriminating evi-
dence will be found weighs in favor of a finding of
voluntariness. Consequently, an awareness or
belief that some incriminating evidence will be
found weighs against a finding of voluntariness.
The record arguably supports the finding that
Soriano did not believe that any incriminating evi-
dence would be found if his car was searched. As
noted, Officer Rodriguez asked Soriano “Do you
give me permission to check the car?” and he
replied, “Check it.” She continued “If I call the

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