[email protected]
or use our live chat
888-579-7796
Customer Service
or use our live chat
Customer Service
EXCELLENT Based on 387 reviews sean thompson2024-09-06Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Just took the SRO course. What an absolute outstanding training!!! I am not an SRO and have not been one. But as the Captain I need to learn and understand as much as I can. This course is excellent to have a better understanding of the law and the SRO... Keep up the great work B2G!!!! Doug Wallace2024-08-29Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Good information provided on S&S James Scira2024-08-27Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great training. I would recommend Blue to Gold training to members of LE. Nichalas Liddle2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. I have had the pleasure of getting to watch some webinars from Blue to Gold and have enjoyed all the insights and knowledge that the instructors have. Good training for all of us in LE careers. Keep on with the good work yโall do. brian kinsley2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great training, refreshers, topic introductions. I love the free webinars! It really helps when budgets are tight. Thank you!! Tim Crouch2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great, free webinars. Thank you. I love the attorney provided content for up to date and accurate information. Anthony Smith2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Awesome stuff!
Gifts & Gears
Mailing Address
Blue to Gold, LLC
12402 N Division St #119
Spokane, WA 99218
RESEARCH
A reliable informant told a Postal Inspector that the defendant had provided the informant with a stolen credit card. The Inspector later verified that the card had been stolen. The informant also told the Inspector that the defendant had agreed to furnish additional stolen credit cards. A meeting was arranged between the informant and the defendant in a public place. Upon receiving a signal from the informant that the defendant was in possession of additional stolen credit cards, Postal Officers made a warrantless arrest of the defendant. When a search of his person failed to turn up the additional cards, the defendant consented to a search of his nearby vehicle. Prior to consenting to the vehicle search, the defendant was told that if anything was found, โit was going to go against [him].โ Two credit cards in the name of other persons were found in the vehicle.
1. Whether the warrantless arrest of the defendant was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, in that the officers had time to obtain a warrant, but failed to do so?
2. Whether the defendantโs consent to search the vehicle was coerced?
1. No. The officers had probable cause to arrest for the felony and, because the arrest occurred in public, they could do so without first obtaining a warrant.
2. No. There was no evidence to indicate that the defendantโs consent was coerced from him.
Nothing in the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant before an officer makes an arrest for a felony offense in a public place. Cases interpreting the Fourth Amendment have traditionally followed the common law approach, which permitted officers to make warrantless arrests that were committed in the officerโs presence. Common law permitted arrests for felonies not committed in the officerโs presence, but for which probable cause existed.
There was no evidence presented that the consent was coerced or otherwise not a product of the defendantโs free will. There were no threats of force made, nor were there any promises made to the defendant that would have flawed his judgment. The fact that the defendant was in custody is not sufficient to show coercion, though it may be a factor. However, the defendantโs consent was given on a public street, after he had been given Miranda warnings, not in the confines of a police station. There was no evidence that the defendant was mentally deficient or unable to exercise his free choice, nor was there evidence that the defendant was a โnewcomer to the law.โ Based on the totality of the circumstances, his consent was voluntarily given.
423 U.S. 411, 96 S. Ct. 820 (1976)
ยฉ Blue to Gold, LLC. All rights reserved