A young man was walking home at night when he passed a police car. The officer inside had previously arrested the young man for drug possession. The young man raised his hands in the air and proclaimed that he was clean this time. The officer got out of the car and began to search the young man.
Did the young man consent to the search?

A) Yes, his actions indicated he was willing to prove to the officer he was clean.
B) Yes, he didn't put up a fight of any sort.
C) No, the officer failed to have him sign a waiver.
D) No, consent must be unequivocal and specific.

Explanation: consent should be given only freely. A consent is usually specific, undeniable. A consent search is when a person has agree to be search. The law state a person has the right to resist any search. A search must be consented to and the officers response for the search must provide a warrant. It is unjust and highly offensive to search without a warrant because the person may sue the officers for damages and unjust searching.

sholanejo sholanejo · Answer 2 · 2020-03-19T05:09:19+01:00

Answer: No, consent must be unequivocal and specific.

Explanation: Consent must be without equivocation or ambiguity; singularly clear, unmistakable, or unquestionable. The young man raised his hands in the air and proclaimed that he was clean then the officer got out of the car and began to search the young man.

The young man raising his hands is not CONSENT to search.

The police officer also got out of the car and started the search without being specific as to why he's conducting the search. These two reasons, makes the search not a consented search.