After Sheriff Lee stopped Bozarth's pickup, he asked for Bozarth's license, registration, and proof of insurance; Bozarth produced the registration and proof of insurance but not a driver's license. The sheriff questioned Bozarth about his travel plans, confronted him about an inconsistency in his story, and then asked for permission to search the vehicle and run a drug dog around it. Bozarth consented to both requests. A deputy ran the dog around the pickup, the dog alerted to a toolbox, and the sheriff found 72 pounds of cocaine inside.
Issue
Whether the district court clearly erred in finding that Bozarth freely and voluntarily consented to the sheriff's search of his pickup. Specifically, the question was whether, under the totality of the circumstances, his consent was the product of duress or coercion.
Rule
The government bears the burden of proving voluntary consent. Consent is voluntary if it is unequivocal and specific and freely and intelligently given, and if it is given without duress or coercion. Voluntariness is assessed under the totality of the circumstances, and a district court's determination of voluntariness is a finding of fact reviewed for clear error.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Outside Tulsa, Oklahoma, Officer Dana Kerr lawfully stopped Luis Mendez for speeding. Within about four minutes, after asking for registration and brief travel-plan information, Kerr asked whether she could search the SUV; she did not raise her voice, touch Luis, display a weapon, or make threats, and a second officer remained in his patrol car reviewing insurance documents.
If Luis later moves to suppress evidence found in the SUV, which argument best states why the consent would most likely be deemed voluntary?
Explanation. The governing rule is that the government bears the burden of proving voluntary consent, and voluntariness depends on the totality of the circumstances. A brief encounter without threats, deception, physical harassment, displayed weapons, commanding behavior, or an intimidating multi-officer presence supports a finding that consent was freely and intelligently given. The other choices misstate the rule by making voluntariness automatic or eliminating the government's burden.