Consensual is NOT the keyword in this case; reasonable suspicion is. Consent has absolutely nothing to do with this ruling, the court was not deciding whether the officer could lawfully search, where the heck do you get such an idea from? The court was deciding whether the officer could lawfully stop the person and ask to search in the first place.
Consent to search may overcome the need for probable cause prior to a search, but it does NOT overcome the need for reasonable suspicion to approach a person, which was the focus of this case.
The court was considering whether or not an officer’s mistaken interpretation of the law may pass for the reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred. You see, under existing precedent and principle it’s generally unlawful for police to, say for example, go to every doorstep in the city and ask the residents for consent to search or pull over every car in the city with no reason and ask the drivers to submit to “voluntary” searches.
In order to get to the point where consent for a search comes in to play, officers need to be able to articulate a reasonable belief that a crime has occurred. That is what is needed in order to pull over your car, not consent; consent is so entirely immaterial to this case that it’s not funny.
The wording of the decision on top of that is what is more troubling. Roberts wrote that.
“... what is needed in order to pull over your car, not consent; consent is so entirely immaterial to this case that it’s not funny.” Ah, and therein lies the clue as to why Roberts was placed at the head of the subSCOTUS. Roberts’ wording contradicts your plain reading of the case. He is giving the leos who do the strong-arm work of the oligarchs the freedom to do anything they deem worthy of their position. But that precedent was established over many rulings ever since the Miranda Act was issued and corroded.
While a little strident in tone, your comment makes a good point. Very good, in fact.
That said, if the person had not consented to the search, he would not be in the position he is in, either. That’s the point we were making.
Again, though, as you stated, the stop was improper, so therefore the search was improper. At least that is the way it used to be. Sigh.
PS Who in their right mind consents to a search with a kilo of cocaine in their car? For that matter, who in their right mind consents to a search period?