Opinion ID: 1931276
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Ruling of the Court

Text: The court ruled that the traffic stop was valid and that appellant gave Officer Marshall a voluntary . . . knowing, and an intelligent consent to be searched: I think, `go ahead' is very clear consent.' The court based its conclusion on Officer Berberich's testimony [11] after finding that Officer Marshall's testimony was not clear about what specifically was said concerning consent [12] and that appellant's testimony was not credible. In particular, the court ruled that the circumstances of the consent were not coercive at all. I don't even think [appellant] indicated they were coercive, quite frankly. . . . I don't find anything coercive about it. The court pointed out that the officers did not draw their weapons, did not speak in a loud voice or yell, and did not use force to remove appellant from the car, and that appellant complied with all requests after he got out of the car. Even though the driver had just been arrested, in close proximity to appellant, the court did not see anything that shows that there [was] any coercion or over display [ sic  overt?] of authority here.