S.D.Tex.: “This protection is at its strongest when a man has retreated into his own home to be free from the expanding gunmen of the state.”

In a remarkable case, the police use really old information and a search warrant previously obtained apparently by perjury, which they disregard and attempt to use the consent of a person they already knew didn’t even live in the house to get in the front door. Then they wake up to interrogate the sleepy mentally disabled defendant on his porch. Everything suppressed. United States v. Blevins, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111809 (S.D. Tex. August 12, 2014):

5. Warrantless Entry.

The Constitution secures people against unreasonable searches and seizures in their houses, papers, and effects. Frustrated by the abuses of Hanoverian kings, the Framers designed the Fourth Amendment to protect people from governmental intrusion into their homes, luggage, books, and similar debris of a free man’s life. This protection is at its strongest when a man has retreated into his own home to be free from the expanding gunmen of the state.

A warrantless search of a home is presumptively unreasonable. Although the officers who went to Blevins’s home had a warrant, they did not use it – suggesting that they knew it had been obtained with perjury. The government nevertheless says that its entry into his home was reasonable because it was invited.

A warrant is not required if the person being searched consents. A third party with common authority over your home may sometimes consent to a search for you. The government can rely on third-party consent if it was reasonable for it to believe that the consenting party had common authority over the property.

On the audio recording, the police first encountered Blevins’s brother outside. He immediately told them he did not live there. The officers nevertheless asked the brother if they could “step in with [him].” He says, “Sure.” On the tape, the officers did not speak with Blevins’s parents until after noises consistent with a door opening and closing.

It was wholly unreasonable for the officers to rely on the consent of a person who told them he did not live at the house. After they were inside, the officers did not ask the parents for permission to be there. Instead, they began their illegal search.

Physical evidence obtained from the home will be suppressed because the government’s search was warantless and unreasonable.

6. Involuntariness.

Putting aside the government’s warrantless entry and failure to notify Blevins of his rights, his statements and consent to being searched were involuntary. He is a troubled person who seems to have serious mental impairments. When the interrogation began, he had only been awake for minutes. Before going to sleep, he had taken prescription sleep medications.

7. Conclusion.

Statements made by Blevins during the custodial interrogation will be suppressed because the government did not inform him of his rights. Physical evidence obtained from the home will be suppressed because the government’s search was warantless and unreasonable. Evidence or statements that were later discovered because of the search or interrogation will also be suppressed as a direct consequence of the officers’ ignoring the limits on their authority – fruit of poisonous practices.

The government should be embarrassed they even indicted this case.