N.D.Ga.: Consent still voluntary despite argument it’s not logical that somebody holding would consent; argument def believed nothing would be found supports voluntariness

That it can be argued it isn’t logical that somebody with drugs would consent, they still do, and it still doesn’t mean that he didn’t consent voluntarily. United States v. Collins, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54816 (N.D.Ga. Feb. 9, 2016), adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54507 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 22, 2016):

Collins argues that it belies human nature for one who possesses controlled substances to voluntarily admit police officers into a location to search where they surely would locate the contraband. However, the issue is not Collins’s subjective motivation to consent (as to which the record is silent) but whether the police did or said anything that coerced him into consenting. No doubt there are always forces inducing a person to cooperate with the police, including “the simple but often powerful convention of openness and honesty, the fear that secretive behavior will intensify suspicion, and uncertainty as to what course is most likely to be helpful ….” See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 487-88, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1971). Here, there may have been multiple incentives motivating Collins to be cooperative. Suffice it to say there is nothing incredible about Collins’s cooperation; defendants frequently cooperate in situations that, in 20/20 hindsight, seem unwise or fantastical. Collins may have cooperated out of fear that his resistance would have ultimately led the police to discover that he was involved in a shooting a few hours before (see infra), he simply may have let his guard down after smoking marijuana, or he may have initially believed that the police would not have located the small amount of marijuana in the room. Whatever his underlying motivation(s), the record is undisputed that he in fact consented and his consent was voluntary.

. . .

The final factor—the defendant’s belief that no incriminating evidence will be found—also supports a finding that Collins voluntarily consented. Collins told the officers initially that he had flushed the marijuana down the toilet, and thus it is reasonable to conclude that, by that statement, he hoped that they would either not find any marijuana or be dissuaded from a further search. His stated belief that no incriminating evidence would be found is a factor pointing to the validity of his consent. United States v. Hall, 565 F.2d 917, 921 (5th Cir. 1978) (“Believing he had nothing to hide, he had nothing to gain by refusing to consent to the search.”) (citation omitted). Moreover, if he was being honest when he disclaimed recalling that he had a firearm in his duffel bag, then he would have believed that the officers would not have located the firearm in the bag.