Atterbury v. Varney

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the occupant's consent to talk and to allow the officer to enter her home was consensual despite the fact that the occupant was in her pajamas
• explaining that statements about obtaining a warrant are not per se coercive and courts “must still examine the particulars' of the case”
• observing that voluntariness of consent is a question of fact which is review ed under the highly deferential clearly-erroneous standard
• finding the courteous interaction of several armed officers with an inhabitant did not render consent to search coerced
• upholding district court’s finding of voluntary consent when the resident repeatedly refused the officers’ initial requests and told them they needed a warrant to search a home but subsequently consented to the search
• seeing “no reason not to defer to the court’s credibility determination” w here -10- district court credits law enforcement officer’s testimony over that of defendant (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).