Illegal Seizure Argument Not Preserved; Denial of Suppression Motion Affirmed

U.S. v. Lambert, 2009 WL 4810291 (12/15/09) (unpub'd) - The defendant could not raise on appeal from a conditional plea the contention that the officers illegally seized her, invalidating her consent to search. Her argument below that she did not voluntarily consent and that the search exceeded her consent did not preserve the illegal seizure argument.

The court did not clearly err in finding the defendant's consent was voluntary even though two officers, after she invited them into her motel room, took control of the situation, turning the lights on in the room, denying her request to smoke, briefly looking into her purse without her consent, conducting a protective sweep of the bathroom and ordering her to get dressed in the bathroom with the door closed. The 10th "understood how these actions could create a coercive environment," but for the most part the officers appeared to have been motivated by legitimate concerns and did not act unreasonably. The officers felt uncomfortable when the defendant got dressed with the bathroom door open, and the search of the purse was based on a legitimate concern that she might have a weapon, [given they were responding to a report of a firearm sale and the defendant's seemingly untruthful answers to their questions]. The search of the bathroom appeared to be unlawful, since it was not incident to an arrest, and there is no justification for refusing to allow the defendant to smoke, but all-in-all the defendant's consent was voluntary.