United States v. Rosborough

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 defendant’s “detention remained consensual prior to the canine alert” because “after the canine alerted, [the defendant] affirmatively asked to terminate the encounter, undermining his claim that he felt unable to revoke his consent”
• holding a canine alert toward the passenger area of a vehicle provided probable cause to search the vehicle’s trunk as well
• concluding defendant’s consent to the search of his vehicle was voluntary where, inter alia, the officer did not ask defendant for consent to search; “to the contrary, [the defendant] himself volunteered permission to [the officer] to search his car”
• describing Nielsen as “limited to the factual scenario of an officer detecting the smell of burnt marijuana”
• facts tending to show that consent was coerced may include multiple officers, physical contact, display of weapon, or aggressive tone
• the fact defendant “affirmatively asked to terminate the encounter” after a canine alert “undermin[ed] his claim that he felt unable to revoke his consent”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).