U.S. v. Wright, 52 M.J. 136

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Search and Seizure

1. responding to a suspect that one would seek a warrant or authorization to search if consent is not given does not foreclose a finding of voluntary consent; this is significantly different than telling a suspect falsely that one has a warrant
2. appellant’s consent was not rendered involuntary by statement that, if appellant did not consent, law enforcement agent would get a search warrant where appellant was fully advised that he had the right to refuse to give consent and he waived that right

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Consent

1. responding to a suspect that one would seek a warrant or authorization to search if consent is not given does not foreclose a finding of voluntary consent; this is significantly different than telling a suspect falsely that one has a warrant
2. appellant’s consent was not rendered involuntary by statement that, if appellant did not consent, law enforcement agent would get a search warrant where appellant was fully advised that he had the right to refuse to give consent and he waived that right

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. a military judge’s decision on disqualification is reviewed for abuse of discretion