Jurado
United States v. Jurado
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Jose Jurado made two motions to suppress evidence prior to the trial that resulted in his conviction: one concerning drugs seized in an automobile search, and another concerning a secretly recorded conversation with his brother and co-defendant. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not repeat them in further detail. We affirm the denial of both motions to suppress.
The district court did not commit clear error in finding that Jurado consented to the automobile search. Jurado verbally agreed to the search and signed a consent form. There is some ambiguity in the record about whether the officer possessed Jurado’s identification card at the time the officer asked for consent. But the same portion of the record establishes that the officer told Jurado that he was “free to leave” before asking for consent to search. Voluntary consent to search is a factual determination, reviewed for clear error. United States v. Cormier, 220 F.3d 1103, 1112 (9th Cir.2000). We cannot find any clear error here. Given the district court’s finding of voluntary consent, defendant’s motion to suppress was appropriately denied.