William R. Cody v. Herman Solem, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary Mark Meierhenry, Attorney General, State of South Dakota

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that where an indicted defendant consented to a search after being advised against it by his attorney, that consent to search is not an incriminating statement
• determining that consent to search was not invalid despite Miranda violation, stating that “[s]imply put, a consent to search is not an incriminating statement”
• stating that Fifth Amendment right to counsel stems from privilege against self-incrimination and is not an independent right and that consent to search is not an incriminating statement because it is not testimonial, nor is physical evidence obtained pursuant to search
• “Simply put, a consent to search is not an incriminating statement. ... While the search taken pursuant to that consent disclosed incriminating evidence, this evidence is real and physical, not testimonial.”
• “Simply put, a consent to search is not an incriminating statement. . . . While the search taken pursuant to that consent disclosed incriminating evidence, this evidence is real and physical, not testimonial.”
• “a consent to search is not an incriminating statement”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).