SIMMONS V. COM.
CRIMINAL: SEARCH AND SEIZURE (TRAFFIC DETENTION)
2006-CA-000691
PUBLISHED: AFFIRMING
PANEL: HOWARD PRESIDING; WINE, GUIDUGLI CONCUR
COUNTY: HARDIN
DATE RENDERED: 10/19/2007
TC properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress alleging that she was illegally detained after the initial traffic stop was concluded. “[T]he legality of a continued detention following a stop for a traffic violation is a question of reasonableness.” Garcia v. Commonwealth, 185 S.W.3d 658, 667 (Ky. App. 2006). Given the totality of the circumstances, the officer’s continued questioning and ultimate detention of Simmons after she was given the traffic citation was not unreasonable. Simmons consent to a search of her vehicle was not the product of coercion or duress. It is well established that a statement by an officer that he will get a search warrant if consent is not given does not negate the voluntariness of the consent, unless the statement was baseless or deceptive, that is, unless the officer could not, in fact, have gotten a warrant. Neither does the fact that the officer asked several times before Simmons gave consent negate the voluntariness of the consent. Finally, Simmons was not unrepresented at any critical stage of the proceedings.
Digested by Scott C. Byrd
Olgin and Byrd
