The State contests that there was no need for a search warrant due to the Appellant's consent. As stated in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973), "A search based upon consent may be undertaken without a warrant or probable cause and any evidence discovered may be seized and admitted at trial." This is in fact the ruling precedent, however the Appellant did not give consent for a full-blown search. Appellant allowed deputies to do a protective sweep, which limited them to a "once over." The consent was then extrapolated by the officers to continue to search the entire trailer. Because this was not an arrest, but an interview of the Appellant no search other then just enough to protect the officers should have been conducted. If this Court were to allow action like this to take place it would permanently damage the concept of the Fourth Amendment.
In section three of the consent clause it states that the consent must be given without coercion from the searching officers.
…
