Watson was being investigated by a postal inspector for illegal use of credit cards, based on a reliable informant's tip. The informant arranged a meeting with Watson, during which the informant was to give a signal if Watson had stolen credit cards. The informant gave the signal, and Watson was arrested and taken outside of the restaurant. The inspector found no credit cards on Watson's person, and asked him for consent to search his car (after obtaining a Miranda waiver). Watson agreed, and the inspector warned him that anything found would "go against him," and asked again for consent. Watson agreed, the inspector found stolen credit cards, and Watson was later convicted of possessing them.
Watson appealed, arguing that his arrest violated the 4th Amendment because it was made without a warrant, and that his consent was involuntary because he had not been told he could refuse. The 9th circuit agreed with him and reversed his conviction, and the prosecution appealed.
The US Supreme Court reversed the 9th's ruling. The court observed that there was no precedent for requiring a warrant for warrants made in a public place. Obtaining a warrant for cases like these is certainly encouraged by the courts, but they do not require it. Further, the court held that there was no illegal coercion and that although the court may consider whether as suspect was informed of his right to refuse consent as a factor, it's not a conclusive test of voluntariness. Accordingly, Watson's conviction was reinstated.
No comments:
Post a Comment