Opinion ID: 2281420
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Court of Appeals Properly Upheld the Validity of Sharon's Consent as Voluntary.

Text: Payton argues that even if Sharon actually or apparently consented to a search of the residence, her consent was not legally valid because it was coerced by a show of authority and threat to custody of her children and, thus, involuntary. We note that he does not indicate if or how he presented this specific issue to the trial court, but we will address the issue. We discern no reversible error in the trial court's not finding Sharon's consent to be involuntary, so we will not disturb the Court of Appeals' affirmation of the denial of the motion to suppress on this basis. As Payton notes, United States Supreme Court precedent requires courts to consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether consent is truly voluntary or coerced through obvious or subtle means, including whether police questions were subtly coercive and whether the consenting person was in a possibly vulnerable subjective state. [10] Payton argues that [t]here is nothing subtle in a situation involving police and child protective services workers showing up at your door, accusing you of having drugs in the home, and suggesting a threat to your continued custody of your children. He asserts that Sharon was intimidated and also intoxicated, citing Deputy Blanton's testimony that Sharon was tore up on drugs at the time. Courts must determine voluntariness of consent based upon an objective evaluation of police conduct and not by the defendant's subjective perception of reality. [11] While Sharon was apparently somewhat intoxicated and may have subjectively felt intimidated under the circumstances, [12] Payton fails to point to any evidence that Secora or the officers made any threats or promises or misrepresentations to induce Sharon's consent. [13] To be precise, Secora stated the purpose of her visit was to investigate allegations of drugs in a home occupied by children; and Blanton, according to his testimony, simply stated that he would like to look around and to search. The visit took place during the middle of the day (as opposed to middle of the night [14] ) when the children were at school. Payton has not claimed that weapons were drawn [15] or that Sharon was incorrectly advised of the existence of a warrant. [16] Although Deputy Blanton acknowledged that Sharon was apparently under the influence of drugs at the time, he also testified that she was not so intoxicated as to not know what she was doing. [17] And although the fact that Sharon was apparently not advised of her right to refuse consent to search, this is only one factor to be considered and is not in and of itself dispositive. [18] All in all, from our review of the evidence and relevant legal authority, we discern no error in the trial court's concluding that Sharon's consent was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances. [19]