Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

Consent — Acquiescence — Generally

State v. Jed A. Giebel, 2006 WI App 239
For Giebel: Robert E. Bellin, Jr.

Issue/Holding:

¶12   The test for voluntariness asks whether consent was given in the “absence of actual coercive, improper police practices designed to overcome the resistance of a defendant.” State v. Clappes, 136 Wis.  2d 222, 245, 401 N.W.2d 759 (1987). In making this determination, no single factor is dispositive. State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, ¶41, 233 Wis.  2d 280, 607 N.W.2d 621. Rather, we examine the totality of the circumstances and place special emphasis on the circumstances surrounding the consent and the characteristics of the defendant.Id. The State has the initial burden to show that the defendant’s consent was voluntary. Id., ¶42. To do so, the State must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant gave consent, without any duress or coercion, express or implied. State v. Phillips, 218 Wis.  2d 180, 197, 577 N.W.2d 794 (1998). In Wisconsin, the State need not prove that the defendant knew of the right to refuse consent. See State v. Xiong, 178 Wis.  2d 525, 532, 504 N.W.2d 428 (Ct. App. 1993).

 

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment