Opinion ID: 805149
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Defendant Consented to the Search

Text: Although the parties only address the issue in passing, there is also a factual dispute about whether Defendant voluntarily consented to the search of her vehicle. When the government asserts that a search is justified by a defendant’s consent, the government bears the burden of proving that, under the totality of the circumstances, the consent was “unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given, uncontaminated by duress and coercion.” United States v. Williams, 754 F.2d 672, 674–75 (6th Cir. 1985) (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 222 (1973)). The district court, having found the initial stop invalid, never reached this issue. However, the magistrate judge described the disputed facts as follows: Trooper Wise testified that he asked Lyons for consent to search her vehicle and she said, “go ahead.” According to Trooper Wise, this request happened prior to Lyons exit[ing] the vehicle. Trooper Grubbs testified that Trooper Wise told him that Lyons had consented to a search, but he did not hear the request or response. Trooper Grubbs also testified that Trooper Wise probably informed him that Lyons had consented to the search during the stop on Eight Mile Road. Defendant did not produce any evidence rebutting that testimony. She does suggest in her supplemental brief that her consent is in question because she was placed in handcuffs prior to the request for the search, but there [is] no No. 10-2402 United States v. Lyons Page 21 support for that argument in the evidence. This court finds Trooper Wise to be credible on the question of consent and that the search was proper. Because the district court did not determine this factual dispute, and the parties’ discussion is inadequate, we decline to address it.