D.Mass.: “Mild ruse” to gain entry by consent to serve an immigration warrant did not violate the Fourth Amendment

A “mild ruse” to gain entry by consent to serve an immigration warrant did not violate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. De La Cruz, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54126 (D. Mass. April 18, 2014):

Immediately prior to the hearing, De La Cruz filed a Supplemental Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained From Warrantless Search. While the grounds for suppression are not clear, De La Cruz seems to argue that his consent to a search, which he agrees in his affidavit that he gave, was invalidated by Agent Graham’s pretense in gaining entry to the apartment that he was looking for a man with a gun (rather than an illegal immigrant). Deception in and of itself, however, does not invalidate consent. It is merely one of the factors to be considered in evaluating voluntariness in the totality of the circumstances. LaFave, 4 Search and Seizure § 8.2(n) (2012). Here, there is nothing so untoward about Agent Graham’s mild ruse that would vitiate De La Cruz’s consent to his entering the apartment or the subsequent permission to search his person. See United States v. Alejandro, 368 F.3d 130, 137 (2d Cir. 2004) (no violation of the knock-and-announce rule where an officer serving an arrest warrant misrepresented himself as a gas company employee to gain entry).