“Got a warrant for that?” with a laugh is not an unambiguous objection to search of defendant passenger’s briefcase in a car where the driver, defendant’s wife, consented to a search of the whole car. He needed to be more specific because it didn’t even put of the officer on notice he was objecting. Defendant could have objected but did not. State v. Wantland, 2013 Wisc. App. LEXIS 147 (February 20, 2013):
Wantland's exchange with the deputy did not amount to such an assertion. A reasonable person would not expect a clear and unequivocal (and serious) identification of one's self as the owner of personal property about to be searched and objection to the search of the property to be made with a question such as “Got a warrant for that?” accompanied by laughter1 and a continued identification of items the deputy could expect to find in searching the briefcase. See Payton, 327 S.W.3d at 478 (concluding that, considering the totality of the circumstances, the defendant's exchange with officers, which included the question “Where's your warrant?” did not constitute revocation of his wife's consent to search their home). The circuit court correctly found that Wantland did not limit the driver's consent to search the vehicle.
↧
