My question involves criminal law for the state of: LA
I have a question concerning someone giving consent to search a home. If the person was intoxicated when they gave LE consent to seach a home could that be used in court?
My question involves criminal law for the state of: LA
I have a question concerning someone giving consent to search a home. If the person was intoxicated when they gave LE consent to seach a home could that be used in court?
Ok, I just thought that if the person was intoxicated they were in no mental state to actually know what they were doing when they gave consent. I may not have worded that right but you get where I am coming.
The law takes a dim view on people ducking their actions from self-induced intoxication. Now if they were medically comatose or mentally challenged so they couldn't make an informed decision, that would be a different story.
Consent can mean different things in different contexts. For sex, consent's meaning has changed a bit over time. For searches? I have not seen any cases that hold such.
- - - Updated - - -
While that seems reasonable, "informed" does not seem to be required. Some cases have used the phrase with the knowledge of right to refuse to make it voluntary, but that tended to be on a person "reasonably" misconstruing the situation based on an officer's misrepresentations.
The original Supreme Court case giving some of the factors is:
Bumper v. North Carolina (1969) 391 U.S. 543
Well the situation was the person was intoxicated and she told me that the police officers asked if they could search the house, and if they had to come back with a search warrant anything they found she would get charged with also.