Mass_Shyster
Senior Member
There's certainly an argument to be made that the consent was coerced. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 228 (1973) ( "the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments require that a consent not be coerced, by explicit or implicit means . . . . For, no matter how subtly the coercion was applied, the resulting 'consent' would be no more than a pretext for the unjustified police intrusion against which the Fourth Amendment is directed")
For the sake of argument, let's say the consent was coerced. What is your recourse?
If the police found evidence and charged you with a crime, that evidence should be suppressed (remember, I'm assuming there was no valid consent). Otherwise, you can sue the police for violating your Civil Rights. You would be entitled to damages plus attorney fees.
For the sake of argument, let's say the consent was coerced. What is your recourse?
If the police found evidence and charged you with a crime, that evidence should be suppressed (remember, I'm assuming there was no valid consent). Otherwise, you can sue the police for violating your Civil Rights. You would be entitled to damages plus attorney fees.