Voluntary Interaction with Officers

“In a society based on law, the concept of agreement and consent should be given a weight and dignity of its own. Police officers act in full accord with the law when they ask citizens for consent. It reinforces the rule of law for the citizen to advise the police of his or her wishes and for the police to act in reliance on that understanding. When this exchange takes place, it dispels inferences of coercion.” United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 207 (2002)

Law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment merely by approaching individuals on the street or in other public places and putting questions to them if they are willing to listen. State v. Green, 375 Md. 595, 609 (2003)

The State must prove voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence.
McMillian v. State, 325 Md. 272, 285 (1992)

As long as police officers do not "induce cooperation by coercive means," they may "pose questions, ask for identification, and request consent to search luggage" even if they have no basis for suspecting that a particular individual has engaged in criminal activity. The Supreme Court has "long approved consensual searches because it is no doubt reasonable for the police to conduct a search once they have been permitted to do so." State v. Green, 375 Md. 595, 609 (2003)

What an officer may not do is use either force or show of force to coerce consent. Consent is coerced if: it is obtained by threats or force, it is granted only in submission to a false claim of lawful authority, or the person giving consent has been affirmatively misled about his or her option to refuse the search. State v. Clowney, 87 Md. App. 48, 56 (1991)

In the absence of:

- the threatening presence of several officers

- the display of a weapon by an officer

- some physical touching of the person of the citizen

- or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled.

“In the absence of some such evidence, otherwise inoffensive contact between a member of the public and the police cannot, as a matter of law, amount to a seizure of that person.” State v. Green, 375 Md. 595, 611 (2003)

Where there was no application of force, no intimidating movement, no overwhelming show of force, no brandishing of weapons, no blocking of exits, no threat, no command, not even an authoritative tone of voice, “It is beyond question that had this encounter occurred on the street, it would be constitutional.” United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 204 (2002)

Examples of consent held valid:

- When 2 officers call out “maintenance” and then show a badge when the Defendant opens the door, valid consent when he agreed to let officers in. Brown v. State, 378 Md. 355, 359 (2003)

- Defendant was willingly transported to the police station and placed in interview room as someone who “may become a suspect.” Abeokuto v. State, 391 Md. 289, 334 (2006)

- Where officers held the Defendant at gunpoint, valid consent to search when Defendant suggested it. Doering v. State, 313 Md. 384, 402 (1988)

- Officer pulls over car, says that "[he would] like to look in [the] vehicle.” Mosley v. State, 289 Md. 571, 573 (1981)

- During car stop after returning license/registration. State v. Clowney, 87 Md. App. 48, 51 (1991)

Even where a person is detained, they may still give consent

A person temporarily detained in a Terry stop may validly consent to a search of his person, papers, or effects. One of the purposes of a Terry stop is to "try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions." Collins v. State, 376 Md. 359, 372-373 (2003)