E.D.Pa.: Ruse to gain entry for arrest was reasonable on totality

Police used a ruse to get access to defendant’s house to execute an arrest warrant on him, and this was reasonable on the totality. United States v. Jones, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107015 (E.D. Pa. June 25, 2019):

“It is beyond debate that deception is a well-established and acceptable tool of law enforcement.” Pagan-Gonzalez v. Moreno, 919 F.3d 582, 591 (1st Cir. 2019) (citing Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 441 (1932)); see also United States v. Butler, 405 F. App’x 652, 656 (3d Cir. 2010) (explaining that officers may use deception during investigations, such as for undercover work). Courts have held that officer deception may render consent involuntary under two circumstances: when the officers falsely represent that they have a warrant even though they do not, and when the officers falsely state that an emergency situation requiring urgent action exists. …

In short, the totality of the circumstances indicate that Defendant’s consent was voluntary. This situation is not comparable to those cases that have held that a ruse by law enforcement vitiated a defendant’s consent to enter their home. The Government has met its burden in establishing that Defendant’s consent was voluntary.

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Consent. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.