United States v. Romanus Isiofia

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a war-rantless home search was unconstitutional where the defendant witnessed the search and gave consent, later found to be involuntary
• affirming a district court’s conclusion that cop-sent to search.was not given voluntarily when law enforcement officers said the defendant would be jailed if he did not consent
• affirming a district court’s conclusion that consent to search was not given voluntarily when law enforcement officers said the defendant would be jailed if he did not consent
• upholding district court’s finding that consent to search was not voluntary “even though . . . had we been sitting as the trier of fact, we would have weighed the evidence differently” (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)
• affirming district court’s finding that a criminal defendant’s consent to a search was involuntary despite his being advised of his right to refuse where officers “demanded” the consent and threatened him with jail and deportation if he did not comply
• “[W]here, as here, findings are based on credibility determinations, even greater deference is required . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).