Opinion ID: 2823835
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Analysis of Section 16-3-310.

Text: Â¶25Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Subsequently, the General Assembly passed section 16-3-310. The trial court relied on this statute to find that Munoz-Gutierrezâs oral consent was invalid. Section 16-3-310 directs a peace officer to provide an oral advisement prior to conducting aÂ consensual search of a personâs vehicle. Paragraph (b) of subsection 16-3-310(1) states two factors that the officer should articulate prior to the consensual search of a vehicle: (1) the person subject to the search is asked to give voluntary consent, and (2) the person has the right to refuse the request. 3 Furthermore, subsection (3) clarifies that â[i]f a defendant moves to suppress any evidence obtained in the course of the search, the court shall consider the failure to comply with the requirements of this section as a factor in determining the voluntariness of the consent.â Â§ 16-3-310(3) (emphasis added). A complete reading of the statute therefore demonstrates that an officerâs articulation of the two enumerated factors is only part of the totality of the circumstances analysis. Hence, the failure to specifically instruct a defendant that consent must be voluntary and that he can refuse the request to search is not determinative.