5 Factors to Evaluate Voluntariness of Consent

R.A. v. Utah, 2010 UT App. 71, (Utah Court of Appeals, March 25, 2010).

Another juvenile was questioned about who provided drugs to him. The juvenile indicated that R.A. had provided the drugs. A police officer went to R.A. house; R.A. was not home. While there, he called R.A. and asked if he would come to the house and give the drugs to him, or would he have to try for a warrant. R.A. came to the house and gave the officer the drugs. No Miranda warnings were ever given.

R.A. was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. R.A. moved to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his home. The Court denied the motion. R.A. appealed. R.A. argued that the consent-search was illegal, because his consent was not voluntary. When deciding voluntariness the trial court must evaluate the Whittenback factors. Those factors are 1) absence of claim of authority to search; 2) absence of exhibition of force; 3) mere request to search; 4) cooperation by defendant; and 5) absence of deception. The burden is on the state to show that consent was voluntary.

In this case, there was not claim to authority to search, no exhibition of force, there was a mere request to search, the defendant cooperated and the officer did not deceive. Based on the evaluation of the factors, this consent was voluntary and the Court of Appeals affirmed the admission of the evidence.

Full Decision available http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/JV_ra032510.pdf