blanket consent is given by bad guy to search vehicle. cell phone in vehicle is searched and info re drug deals is found (drugs are found also). officers notify defendant of cell phone findings, D admits to drug deals. are admissions tainted by the cell phone search? was it illegal?

He gave a general consent to search? Seems ok to me. You could contrast the cases where drivers give consent to search a car that does not extend to items that don't belong to them, such as purses.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JohnR,

General consent means consent to search everything. D could've limited the consent at any time but chose not to. I'd compare it to someone who says "sure, you can search the car", then later complains that they searched the trunk. Unless the D was saying "you can search the car, but not the trunk," then the general consent controls.

Check out:

Velez v. State, 240 S.W.3d 261 (Tex. App.---Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (written consent did not constrain scope of oral consent already given to search inside vehicles on property).

Simpson v. State, 29 S.W.3d 324, 330 (Tex. App.---Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd) ("Unless an officer's request, or a suspect's consent, limits a search to a particular area of the vehicle, such as the passenger compartment or trunk, we believe that a request for a search “of the car” reasonably includes all areas of the vehicle and excludes none.").

Alleman v. State, No. 09-10-00173-CR, slip op. at 8-12, 2011 WL 193496, *4-6 (Tex. App.---Beaumont 2011, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication)(officer's search of bag in trunk did not exceed scope of consent to search vehicle).