Consentimiento y Búsqueda en Procedimientos Criminales

Explicación Simple

Si la policía quiere revisar tu casa, a veces necesitan tu permiso. Si das ese permiso, lo que encuentran puede ser usado en tu contra, incluso si entraron de forma incorrecta antes.

Es como si un amigo te pide entrar a tu casa para buscar algo. Si le dices que sí, puede mirar sin problemas, aunque haya entrado antes sin permiso.

Ejemplo Práctico

Imagina que Juan está en su casa y la policía entra sin permiso, pero luego le piden que revisen su habitación. Juan acepta y les da permiso. Ellos encuentran un arma visible y eso puede ser usado en su contra, aunque la entrada inicial no fue correcta.

Texto Original del Estatuto (Inglés)

a third party's subsequent consent to search the room was untainted by the illegal entry. Snider v. State, 292 Ga. App. 180 , 663 S.E.2d 805 (2008). Suppression of evidence from consensual activities. - Defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied after the defendant voluntarily consented to police officers searching the bedroom and the officers found the firearm in plain view; moreover, the officers did not threaten the defendant into giving the consent merely by telling the defendant that the officers could obtain a warrant based on the officers' earlier seizure of marijuana in another part of the house. Butler v. State, 272 Ga. App. 557 , 612 S.E.2d 865 (2005). Trial court's order denying the defendant's motion to suppress was upheld on appeal as: (1) the defendant lacked standing to contest a search of a cohort's vehicle; (2) the defendant consented to a subsequent search of the defendant's own residence; and (3) the defendant failed to show harm by the introduction of evidence found in vehicles parked in the yard of the residence, which the trial court clearly found to be innocuous. Valle v. State, 282 Ga. App. 223 , 638 S.E.2d 394 (2006), cert. denied, No. S07C0405, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 219 (Ga. 2007), 552 U.S. 849, 128 S. Ct. 108 , 169 L. Ed. 2 d 78 (2007). Because the defendant's encounters with the police remained consensual and voluntary, and the defendant consented to a continued detention for further questioning, a motion to suppress the evidence seized based on a