Defendant’s traffic ticket took 17-20 minutes. He was free to leave, and the officer asked for consent, which defendant first hesitated about and the officer clarified, and he consented. United States v. Mohammed, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129055 (M.D. Fla. June 29, 2009).*
Defendant’s traffic ticket took 16 minutes. As he was walking back to his car, he was asked for consent, which he gave. United States v. Cruz-Guzman, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129013 (M.D. Fla. May 21, 2009).*
One could say that the defendants here were just stupid for consenting, which might be only a little true. Instead, I believe all these type cases involve the officer exploiting every motorist’s legal need to cooperate during a traffic stop, which his hardly ever discussed in the cases. While the officer may say the defendant is free to go, the defendant doesn’t necessarily know it even if the officer tells him he can go but then re-engages him in conversation. At that point, the defendant has to believe that his permission to leave has been revoked. Just how truly “free to leave” are you when the officer keeps talking? “He said I could go but now obviously I can't because he's asking questions.” How “free” is that?
This is truly exploitation of a fiction in both fact and the law, and it is sorely disappointing to read this cases with the officer exploiting the motorist to keep talking to get consent or reasonable suspicion. You'd have to read the case law to know you were free to leave, and who does that except us lawyers?
"