Page | 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT FOR THE ...

the officers that he had written Under Protest on the signature line, not his name.
Instead, he pretended to sign the form and then stood by as the search resumed. That is
not consistent with withdrawing or revoking a consent. The consent was valid.
→
THE SEARCH DID NOT EXCEED THE SCOPE OF DAVIS’ CONSENT
As the United States Supreme Court has held: “The scope of a search is generally
defined by its expressed object.” Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251 (1991). Therefore,
when a person with actual or apparent authority consents to a general search, “law
enforcement may search anywhere within the general area where the sought-after item
could be concealed.” Jackson, 598 F.3d at 348-49.
In the case sub judice, Claimants contend that if Randy Davis orally consented to
the search, then his signing of the written form “Under Protest” limited the scope of the
permitted search, because it constituted an express rejection of the language on the form
permitting the search of “constructed compartments.” Claimants also suggest that the
search exceeded the scope of any oral consent because “the discovery of the currency
required the dismantling of the bed compartment, ‘a vehicle component’ as
contemplated in the language of the rejected consent form” (Doc. 15, pp. 10-11). These
arguments are wholly devoid of merit.
The Court has found that Randy Davis voluntarily and knowingly furnished oral
consent to search the tractor-trailer. Nothing in the record before the Court supports
the conclusion that Davis attempted to limit the scope of the search (or withdrew his
consent to search). When Davis hesitated to sign the written consent form, Officer
Page | 21