Opinion ID: 2995473
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Search of Van

Text: Guadalupe also contends that he did not voluntarily consent to the search of the van. Thus, he claims, all of the evidence found in the van was the result of an illegal search. Had the consent to search the van been made in the midst of an illegal arrest, it may very well have been invalid as fruit of the poisonous tree. See United States v. Sanchez- Jaramillo, 637 F.2d 1094, 1099-1100 (7th Cir. 1980) (excluding evidence found after consent given during illegal arrest). But if the investigatory stop was justified, as we have concluded this one was, we examine the consent only to see if it was the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice. . . . Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 225 (1973). Guadalupe has offered nothing to support a finding of involuntariness. The consent form was written in Spanish, Guadalupe’s native language, and he signed it. He makes no argument that he was threatened or otherwise coerced into giving the consent. The fact that he was being questioned by police at the time is no basis for establishing involuntariness. See United States v. Cipriano, 765 F.2d 610, 612 (7th Cir. 1985) ([T]here is nothing inherently coercive in an officer’s identification of himself as a law enforcement agent and subsequent questioning.) Looking at the totality of the circumstances, see Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 227, Guadalupe has not shown that his consent was given unknowingly or involuntarily.