Can ambiguous statements withdraw consent to search a vehicle? State v. Dunkel Explained

In State v. Dunkel, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when statements made during a consensual vehicle search constitute an effective withdrawal of consent. The case provides important guidance on the unequivocal standard required for revoking search consent.

Background and Facts

Deputy Haney stopped Dunkel for a traffic violation and, suspecting drug impairment, requested consent to search Dunkel’s vehicle for drugs. Dunkel consented to the search. When the deputy opened the trunk and discovered a blue storage container, he asked what was inside. Dunkel responded that he didn’t know what was in the container and couldn’t give permission to search it because it belonged to a friend. The deputy proceeded to search the container anyway, discovering methamphetamine laboratory equipment.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Dunkel’s statements about the container constituted an effective withdrawal of consent or limitation of scope for the ongoing search. Dunkel argued his statements either revoked his consent or limited the search to exclude the container.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied the well-established rule that withdrawal of consent requires an “unequivocal act or statement.” Courts nationwide have consistently held that ambiguous actions or statements do not effectively withdraw prior valid consent. The court found Dunkel’s statements were ambiguous and could reasonably be interpreted multiple ways: as concern for his friend’s property, as a warning about lack of the owner’s permission, or as an attempt to distance himself from potential incriminating evidence. Because the statements were not unequivocally clear, they did not revoke Dunkel’s initial general consent to search the vehicle for drugs.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces the high bar for withdrawing search consent. Practitioners should advise clients that clear, direct language is essential to revoke consent—statements like “I withdraw my consent” or “I want you to stop searching.” Ambiguous comments about ownership, authority, or uncertainty will not suffice. The case also demonstrates that general consent to search for drugs typically extends to containers that could reasonably contain narcotics, absent clear limitations.