Cert. grant: “Consent once removed,” Pearson v. Callahan

SCOTUS granted cert yesterday in Pearson v. Callahan, 07-751, decision below 494 F.3d 891 (10th Cir. 2007), posted here July 17th.

Question Presented: Whether entering the house of an individual pursuant to the “consent once removed” exception to the warrant requirement violates the Fourth Amendment.

From Willamette Law School:

The issue in this case is whether police officers violated respondent’s Fourth Amendment right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure when the officers entered the home of respondent pursuant to a “consent once removed” exception to the warrant requirement.

Officers from the Central Utah Narcotics Task Force (petitioners) received information from a confidential informant that Callahan (respondent) was a methamphetamine dealer. Petitioners met with the informant before the sale, gave him a marked $100 bill, escorted him to respondent’s home, and waited for the signal from the informant that the sale was complete. When the officers heard the signal, they entered respondent’s house through a porch door. Respondent consented to a protective sweep of the house. The officers found evidence of drug sale and possession while in the house, yet they did not have a warrant at any point in the search of the house. Respondent was charged and convicted of possession and distribution of methamphetamine. The trial court determined that the evidence found during the warrantless search was admissible because of the existence of an exigent circumstance. The Utah Court of Appeals reversed, finding that no exigent circumstances existed. Based on this ruling, respondent filed a civil action in the United States Court for the District of Utah, against the individual officers and the task force. The District Court dismissed respondent’s claims, on the ground that (1) respondent’s constitutional rights were not clearly established because the “consent once removed” doctrine applied to the search, and (2) suit against the officers was shielded by qualified immunity. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, although the informant had the express permission of the owner to enter the house, this permission does not extend to officers outside of the home, regardless of their collaboration with the informant. Therefore, respondent’s civil suit was valid because this was an unreasonable search and seizure and respondent established a constitutional right. [Summarized by Dorothy Ryan]

The NYTimes article is here.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.