By Holly Werris
SACRAMENTO, CA – The Third Appellate District Court of California here last week granted a motion to suppress evidence, ruling an officer’s falsehoods qualify as coercion, no matter the officer’s intentions.
The case involves Juan Boitez, who was pulled over during a traffic stop. The officer told him that he had the power to tow his car, but would not if he was allowed to search the vehicle.
Boitez agreed, only to later find out that the officer did not have any ability to tow his car at all and was granting him a “false promise of leniency.”
The Appellate Court ruled the officer’s statement coerced Boitez into giving consent, regardless of whether the officer believed he did or did not have the right.
The Court adopted the same reasoning as the First Circuit Court of Appeals, presiding over the northeastern seaboard and Puerto Rico, when it ruled consent “cannot be based on the subjective good faith of a police officer in making the false statement that induced the defendant’s consent to search.”
The CA Appellate Court ordered the trial court to vacate its original order denying the motion to suppress and issue a new order granting the motion.
