Opinion ID: 1346048
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Whether Consent Was Freely and Voluntarily Given

Text: The State must prove that the consent to search was freely and voluntarily given. State v. Pope, 239 Neb. 1009, 480 N.W.2d 169 (1992). See, also, State v. Juhl, 234 Neb. 33, 449 N.W.2d 202 (1989). In order for consent to search to be valid, it must be the result of a free and unconstrained choice and not the product of the will overborne. State v. Graham, 241 Neb. 995, 492 N.W.2d 845 (1992); State v. Juhl, supra . It cannot be the result of duress or coercion, whether express, implied, physical, or psychological. Id. See, also, Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). This determination is based on the totality of the circumstances. Id. ; State v. Graham, supra ; State v. Juhl, supra . While knowledge of the right to withhold consent is a factor to be considered, it is not a prerequisite to establishing a voluntary and intelligent consent. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, supra ; State v. Wood, 195 Neb. 353, 238 N.W.2d 226 (1976). Lager testified that when he asked Uehling if he could search the vehicle, Uehling responded go ahead. The Court of Appeals held: The undisputed testimony is that Uehling was drunk and in no condition to drive and that Uehling never had physical control of the vehicle. Intoxication is a factor relevant to assessing the validity of consent. State v. Melton, 239 Neb. 790, 478 N.W.2d 341 (1992). So too, Uehling's consent to search articulated as go ahead approaches mere submission to authority. State v. Konfrst, 4 Neb.App. at 528, 546 N.W.2d at 74. Konfrst never asserted that Uehling did not say go ahead when asked by Lager whether he could search the vehicle. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record, nor is there any contention by Konfrst, that Uehling's consent was involuntarily given or the product of duress or coercion. Thus, we fail to see how the response go ahead approaches mere submission to authority. There is evidence that the officers believed that Uehling had been drinking alcohol and that he would not be able to operate a vehicle safely. The mere fact of intoxication is not conclusive on the issue of voluntariness of a statement or a consent given by a defendant. State v. Melton, 239 Neb. 790, 478 N.W.2d 341 (1992). A defendant must be so intoxicated that he is unable to understand the meaning of his statements. Id. In Melton, the defendant gave a statement to police officers that he had discharged his firearm at an automobile or residence of another police officer, and he also gave consent for the officers to search his home for the purpose of finding and removing the firearm. The court held that the defendant's statement and consent were knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently given, even though his blood alcohol level at that time was .158 percent. The court reasoned that the defendant was able to understand the meaning of his statements because he was able to accurately relate events and circumstances surrounding the shooting; volunteered information regarding the gun he had used, including its caliber and type; and knew that he had the right to remain silent in the presence of police officers. In the instant case, the record does not support a finding that Uehling was so intoxicated that he was unable to understand the meaning of his statement go ahead, in response to Lager's request for consent to search the vehicle. In fact, the record shows that Uehling was able to answer the officers' questions and respond to their commands, that Uehling understood and responded to Konfrst's command to get Konfrst's money out of the Blazer in order to bail him out of jail, and that Uehling had the presence of mind to state that he didn't want to drive and that it would be better if Amy Goldyn took the vehicle. Thus, the evidence in the record leads us to conclude that Uehling's consent was the result of a free and unconstrained choice, and not the product of the will overborne. See, State v. Graham, 241 Neb. 995, 492 N.W.2d 845 (1992); State v. Juhl, 234 Neb. 33, 449 N.W.2d 202 (1989). A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, apart from determinations of reasonable suspicion to conduct investigatory stops and probable cause to perform warrantless searches, is to be upheld on appeal unless its findings of fact are clearly erroneous. See, State v. Newman, 250 Neb. 226, 548 N.W.2d 739 (1996); State v. Bowers, 250 Neb. 151, 548 N.W.2d 725 (1996). In the instant case, Konfrst's motion to suppress essentially asserted that no exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement were applicable. However, the district court did not make any specific findings of fact, in writing or from the bench, when it overruled the motion. In State v. Osborn, 250 Neb. 57, 67, 547 N.W.2d 139, 145 (1996), after discussing how essential findings of fact are to proper appellate review, this court held that [h]enceforth, district courts shall articulate in writing or from the bench their general findings when denying or granting a motion to suppress. It is noted that Konfrst's motion to suppress was denied by the district court before Osborn was released. In other cases, we determined that certain findings of fact were implicit in the lower court's decision. See, e.g., State v. DeGroat, 244 Neb. 764, 508 N.W.2d 861 (1993) (although no specific finding was made regarding location of controlled substance in relationship to defendant, such finding was unimportant because alternative findings supported conclusion that defendant was in possession of controlled substance); State v. Morrison, 243 Neb. 469, 500 N.W.2d 547 (1993) (implicit in trial court's denial of motion to suppress is that court would have had to find certain fact); State v. Martin, 243 Neb. 368, 500 N.W.2d 512 (1993) (stating that district court must not have believed defendant's testimony). We determine that implicit in the trial court's decision in the instant case is the finding that Uehling possessed the authority to, and did in fact, consent to a search of the vehicle. As a result, we conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in determining that the district court's decision to overrule Konfrst's motion to suppress the contraband discovered underneath the wad of money was clearly erroneous.