TX2: Asking for consent four times doesn’t make it coercive

The fact defendant was asked four times for consent doesn’t make it coercive. Arnold v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 7228 (Tex. App. – Ft. Worth Sep. 11, 2025).

Velez finally contends that no reasonable officer could have concluded that Velez was resisting arrest or detention because he was not given an opportunity to submit before force was used on him. But the cases Velez cites for this proposition analyzed this factor in the context of Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims. … We therefore address this argument in our excessive-force analysis. Nor do we see how this argument would alter our thinking here, where the video evidence clearly depicts Velez first verbally refusing to get out and then physically resisting the officers’ attempts to achieve compliance. We thus affirm the district court’s conclusion that, as a matter of law, the officers had probable cause to arrest Velez, and that Velez’s wrongful-arrest and false-imprisonment claims fail as a result. Velez v. Eutzy, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 23885 (1st Cir. Sep. 16, 2025).*

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective in litigating the search claim below. It was substantially dealt with on the direct appeal where a DVR device that probably recorded a drug transaction was a “drug record.” State v. Groce, 2025 Ohio App. LEXIS 3158 (10th Dist. Sep. 16, 2025);* State v. Walker, 2025 Ohio App. LEXIS 3157 (10th Dist. Sep. 16, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Excessive force, Scope of search, Voluntariness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.