Opinion ID: 1346048
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: determination of authority to consent

Text: Backup officer Jim Murcek arrived at the scene while Sanchez was administering the field sobriety tests to Konfrst. Murcek testified at trial that while standing next to Uehling, approximately 25 feet away from Konfrst, he heard Konfrst say that Konfrst wanted his vehicle released to Dave Uehling. Cpl. Joseph Lager arrived at the scene after Murcek, but prior to Sanchez' removal of Konfrst from the scene. At the suppression hearing, Lager testified that he asked Konfrst if the Blazer was his vehicle, and Konfrst stated that it was his aunt's and his aunt gave control of the vehicle to David Uehling. At trial, Lager testified that he asked Konfrst if he was the person in charge of the vehicle, and Konfrst stated that he wasn't ... the vehicle was his aunt's and that David Uehling was actually in charge of the vehicle. Lager also testified at both the hearing and trial that he heard Konfrst yell to Uehling to get Konfrst's money out of the Blazer and bail him out of jail. Sanchez testified on cross-examination at the suppression hearing that Lager asked Konfrst what he wanted to do with the vehicle and that Konfrst responded the vehicle was in Dave Uehling's possession. However, at trial, during direct examination, Sanchez testified that he did not hear Konfrst say anything to anybody prior to leaving the scene. On cross-examination, Sanchez was asked whether Konfrst ever said that he wanted anyone else to have control of the vehicle. Sanchez responded, Not to me, sir. Although unknown to the officers at the time, the registered owner of the vehicle, Mary Jo Harris, was in fact the mother, rather than the aunt, of Konfrst. The parties stipulated to the testimony of Harris in an exhibit received into evidence at trial. The parties stipulated that if Harris were called, she would state that she is the mother of Konfrst, that the Blazer was registered in her name, and that Konfrst was the purchaser of the Blazer and its principal driver. Lager testified at both the suppression hearing and the trial that the Blair Police Department has a standard written policy that if there is a licensed operator who is competent to drive, the officer in charge may release the vehicle to that person with the permission of the arrestee, but that the policy does not require the officer to release the vehicle. Murcek testified that Uehling appeared to have been drinking and that it was his opinion that Uehling would not be able to operate a motor vehicle safely. Murcek further testified that Uehling stated that it would be better if Amy Goldyn took the vehicle. Lager testified that he told Uehling that I don't think you can drive, therefore, I'm not going to let you drive away, and that Uehling stated that he didn't want to drive. Murcek and Lager each testified that they did not believe that Goldyn had been drinking. At the suppression hearing, Lager testified that because of the operator, being Mr. Konfrst, and my knowledge of Mr. Konfrst... from previous contacts, I would have impounded that vehicle anyway. At trial, Lager testified that since the driver was arrested for D[U]I, [the vehicle] would have been impounded any way. It is undisputed that prior to the time Konfrst was transported from the parking lot, no search of the Blazer had been requested of him or performed. After Konfrst was removed from the scene, Lager approached Uehling and told him that Konfrst had told Lager that Uehling had control of the Blazer. Lager then asked Uehling if this was so. Uehling responded by saying, `I guess so.' Lager then asked if he could search the vehicle. Uehling responded go ahead.