Opinion ID: 2137389
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Limitation, Revocation, or Withdrawal of Consent.

Text: Stanford argues his consent, although originally voluntary, was tacitly withdrawn and later coerced by the threat of catheterization. In consent to search cases, an initial voluntary grant of consent may be limited, withdrawn or revoked at any time prior to the completion of the search. Meyer, 441 N.W.2d at 765. However, in order to limit, revoke or withdraw an initial grant of consent, the consenter must clearly inform the appropriate official that the initial consent has been limited, withdrawn or revoked. See United States v. Alfaro, 935 F.2d 64, 67 (5th Cir.1991), and cases cited therein. In our review of the record, we find that Stanford did not inform the proper official with specificity he wanted to limit, revoke or withdraw his initial written consent to provide a urine specimen to the troopers. Initially, Stanford could not provide a urine specimen to the troopers because of his particular treatment position on the backboard. Later attempts to obtain a specimen were unsuccessful because Stanford was physically unable to provide a specimen even though he said he was trying. It was not that Stanford would not provide a specimen, rather, it was that Stanford could not provide a specimen. A statement that one will not provide a specimen is precise, whereas a statement that one cannot provide a specimen is unclear. Here, Stanford's actions in the hospital as reflected in his testimony I couldn't right then, and because I couldn't, did not clearly inform the trooper that he was revoking his consent. Stanford admitted he had not told the trooper that he had decided to withdraw his consent and would not provide a sample. His conduct thus falls short of an unequivocal act or statement of withdrawal, something found in most withdrawal of consent cases. Alfaro, 935 F.2d at 67.