Court Opinion

ID: 9547960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:55:19.727035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:18.395403
License: Public Domain

Thompson, J.,
dissenting:
Today, this court holds that one waives his constitutional right to be protected against an unreasonable seizure by peacefully and silently submitting to the request of a law enforcement officer. The peaceful, silent acquiescence is construed to be a consent. This holding is contrary to Thurlow v. State, 81 Nev. 510, 406 P.2d 918 (1965). We there ruled that peaceful submission to the request of an officer was not a consent and could not be considered an intelligent waiver of a constitutional right. Id. at 515. Moreover, today’s decision annihilates established doctrine that the State must prove consent by clear and persuasive evidence. Consent may be given orally (McIntosh v. State, 86 Nev. 133, 466 P.2d 656 (1970)) or in written form (State v. Plas, 80 Nev. 251, 391 P.2d 867 (1964)), but should not be found to exist when neither is present. Here, from a silent record, the court finds a waiver of a constitutional right when we don’t know whether Lee was aware that he possessed that right or whether he simply was afraid to assert it. This is not consonant with basic constitutional doctrine.
When the officer requested Lee to remove his shoes, that request carried an implied coercion. Amos v. United States, 255 U.S. 313 (1921). Lee succumbed to authority. Most people would do the same unless notified of their right to refuse. Lee was not under arrest nor did the officer have reason to arrest him at that juncture. The officer possessed no warrants for arrest or search. There is nothing to suggest that the officer was in danger, or thought that he was. He was present to investigate an accident. The right to privacy does not yield to the right to seize where there is no warrant, no arrest; only silent submission to authority.