United States v. Craig Sanders, A/K/A Sparks
2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 20396, 424 F.3d 768 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A suspect's consent to a search can be withdrawn through an unequivocal act or statement, and repeated physical actions that are clearly inconsistent with consent, such as preventing an officer from searching a specific area, can constitute such a withdrawal even without a verbal revocation.
Facts:
- An employee at a local motel called Cedar Rapids police officer Ryan Abodeely about a guest, Craig Sanders, whom they suspected of dealing drugs due to many people coming and going from his room.
- Over three days, Officer Abodeely investigated but did not observe anything to establish probable cause for a search.
- On the fourth day, June 20, 2002, Officer Abodeely and another officer knocked on Sanders's hotel room door.
- Sanders opened the door and allowed the officers to enter.
- Officer Abodeely asked for permission to search the room and Sanders's person.
- Sanders consented and raised his arms to facilitate a search of his person.
- When Abodeely searched Sanders's upper body without incident and then attempted to reach into his front pants pockets, Sanders lowered his hands to block him.
- This scenario of Abodeely attempting to search the pockets and Sanders lowering his hands to block the search repeated at least five times, with Abodeely ordering Sanders to raise his hands each time.
Procedural Posture:
- Craig Sanders was indicted in federal district court on one count of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine.
- Sanders filed a motion to suppress the crack cocaine, arguing that he did not consent to the search, or in the alternative, that he withdrew his consent.
- The district court denied Sanders's motion to suppress, finding he had voluntarily consented to the search and that his actions did not amount to an unequivocal withdrawal of that consent.
- Following his conviction and sentencing, Sanders appealed the district court's denial of his suppression motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a suspect's repeated physical actions of lowering his hands to block an officer from searching his pockets, despite prior general consent to a search of his person, constitute an unequivocal withdrawal of that consent?
Opinions:
Majority - Bye, Circuit Judge
Yes, the suspect's actions constituted an unequivocal withdrawal of consent. A suspect can withdraw consent through an unequivocal act, and the standard for measuring this is objective reasonableness—what a typical reasonable person would have understood from the exchange. Here, Sanders's repeated actions of moving his hands down to prevent Officer Abodeely from searching his pockets made it apparent he did not consent to that part of the search. The fact that the officer had to ultimately handcuff Sanders to complete the search of his pockets is dispositive evidence that the search was no longer consensual. Any objective observer would conclude that Sanders was not consenting to the search of his pockets.
Dissenting - Gruender, Circuit Judge
No, the suspect's actions did not constitute an unequivocal withdrawal of consent. The district court's factual finding that consent was not withdrawn was not clearly erroneous and should be given deference. Sanders's actions were ambiguous, not unequivocal, because while he lowered his arms, he never verbally objected and repeatedly complied with the officer's commands to raise his arms again. A reasonable observer could have seen his actions as mere reluctance or a reflexive action, especially since he never grabbed the officer's hand or stated a desire to stop the search. His repeated cooperation with the officer's requests to raise his arms made his other actions equivocal rather than a clear withdrawal.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the standard for non-verbal withdrawal of consent to a search under the Fourth Amendment. It establishes that a pattern of physical obstruction aimed at a specific area can be an 'unequivocal act' of withdrawal, even if the suspect does not verbally revoke consent and partially complies with officer commands. The decision emphasizes the 'objective reasonableness' standard from the perspective of an observer, highlighting that a search which requires force or restraint (like handcuffing) to complete cannot be considered consensual. This precedent provides guidance for lower courts in distinguishing between mere reluctance and a clear, albeit non-verbal, revocation of consent.
