The established test to determine whether consent was voluntary (versus involuntary and, therefore, acquiescence to police authority) is for the court to consider the “totality of the circumstances.” Analyzing the actions of the accused from the reasonable person standard, the trial courts are to look at three factors to determine whether the consent to search was voluntary: (1) the time and place of the encounter, (2) the number of officers present, and (3) the officers’ words and actions; a court analyzes these factors from the perspective of a reasonable person, untrained in the law, deciding whether he or she is free to end the encounter.[
Although based in the language of the Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule remedy grew out of an understanding of fairness and purpose. If the government could prosecute someone with illegally obtained evidence, then what exactly was the purpose of the Fourth Amendment? And how was that fair? What did the Fourth Amendment protect if it could not be enforced on its face? Obviously, the government could not/should not get a windfall by circumventing the requirements of the Fourth Amendment…thus, the exclusionary rule remedy.
A “pocket warrant” is common street vernacular for a PCPR. The request is not a warrant at all. Usually, a “pocket warrant” or PCPR refers to an electronic notation in the LEO’s computer database that the authorities want to arrest a person and have reason to believe that that person has committed a felony offense. Unfortunately, the “pocket warrant” or PCPR is not a warrant and does not carry the force of law.