AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted of criminal sexual contact of a minor in the second degree (under 13) and enticement of a child. During the execution of a search warrant at his home, the Defendant consented to hand over his cell phone to the officers. This consent and the subsequent seizure of the cell phone were contested by the Defendant, who argued that his consent was not voluntary but rather a mere acquiescence to a coercive show of authority by the officers.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the consent given to turn over his cell phone to the officers was invalid as it was mere acquiescence to a coercive show of authority. The Defendant analogized his case to previous cases where consent was deemed involuntary under coercive circumstances and distinguished his situation from a case where consent was considered voluntary.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's consent to turn over his cell phone to officers, while executing a search warrant at his home, was voluntary or constituted mere acquiescence to a coercive show of authority.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence, concluding that the Defendant voluntarily consented to the seizure of his cell phone.

Reasons

• Per ATTREP, J. (HANISEE, C.J., and HENDERSON, J., concurring): The court was not persuaded by the Defendant's analogy to cases where consent was deemed involuntary due to coercive circumstances or his attempt to distinguish his case from one where consent was considered voluntary. The court found the facts of the current case more analogous to a precedent where consent was not obtained by duress. In the present case, officers were finishing a search of the Defendant's home under a valid search warrant when the Defendant and his father entered. The officers treated them respectfully, explained their actions, and asked for the cell phone without coercion, force, or threat. The Defendant handed over his cell phone immediately and without hesitation, indicating voluntary consent. The court also noted that the Defendant did not argue that the officers lacked probable cause for the search and that the search warrant authorized the seizure of the cell phone. The court concluded that the manner in which the officers conducted themselves did not rise to the level of coercion or duress that would invalidate the voluntary nature of the Defendant's consent (paras 2-10).