The officer’s statement seeking consent that he’d sought and obtained 222 search warrants and never been turned down for one was coercive. Thus, there had to be a showing of probable cause to the defendant and probable cause here was lacking. State v. Lovato, 2020 N.M. LEXIS 43 (Dec. 3, 2020):
We conclude that the statements in this case are distinguishable from those made in Shaulis-Powell. We find it impossible to characterize Gallegos’ statement that he had obtained over 222 search warrants and had never once been denied as a mere assessment of the situation. Rather, such a statement amounts to an unequivocal assertion that a search warrant is forthcoming. In addition, Gallegos made this statement in the midst of presenting Defendant with “two options”—Defendant could consent to the search or Gallegos would get a search warrant and Defendant would be kicked out of the residence pending the arrival of the warrant. This communicated that a search of Defendant’s property was inevitable. See United States v. Kaplan, 895 F.2d 618, 622 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Courts have drawn distinctions where, on one hand, an officer merely says that he will attempt to obtain a search warrant or whether, on the other hand, he says he can obtain the search warrant, as if it were a foregone conclusion.”). Indeed, Defendant testified that he “didn’t know what to do,” and felt that, in effect, he had no other option but to consent. As we have stated, “[w]hen an officer unequivocally asserts that he will be able to obtain a warrant, a defendant’s belief that refusal to consent would be futile demonstrates involuntary consent.” Davis, 2013-NMSC-028, ¶ 23. The only possible exception to this rule is where the officer in fact possessed probable cause to search or, in other words, where an assertion of lawful authority was justified. See Shaulis-Powell, 1999-NMCA-090, ¶ 12. Thus, we turn to that issue.
Whether there was probable cause to obtain a search warrant
P22 Where an officer’s statements amount to an unequivocal assertion that a search warrant will be obtained, such an assertion does not vitiate subsequent consent provided there is probable cause to support a warrant. Shaulis-Powell, 1999-NMCA-090, ¶ 12 (relying on United States v. Evans, 27 F.3d 1219, 1231 (7th Cir. 1994) and Kaplan, 895 F.2d at 622). Notably, it is not enough that the threat to obtain a search warrant is made in good faith; “there must in fact be probable cause.” 4 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 8.2(c), at 99 (6th ed. 2020). Moreover, where an officer threatens to seize or detain property while obtaining a warrant, as here, where Gallegos told Defendant that he would be ejected from his property pending the issuance of a warrant, such a threat must also be supported by a demonstration of probable cause. See, e.g., id. at 100 (noting that police may not misrepresent “the scope or extent of the authority they would have under such a search warrant or preliminary to its issuance”) (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). We review the factual findings undergirding the district court’s determination on the issue of probable cause for substantial evidence. State v. Martinez, 2020-NMSC-005, ¶ 15, 457 P.3d 254.
P23 In Shaulis-Powell, the Court of Appeals reached the question of probable cause, despite the Court’s conclusion that the character of the officer’s statements did not mandate such an inquiry. 1999-NMCA-090, ¶¶ 12-13. It concluded that “[a]lthough the existence of probable cause is a close question in this case, we think it likely that a magistrate would have issued a warrant.” Id. ¶ 13. Evidence supporting probable cause included a tip from a citizen informant that police corroborated “by visiting the location and observing, in the precise location described, plants that appeared to be marijuana based on the officers’ experience.” Id. In Evans and Kaplan, both of which were relied upon by the Court of Appeals in Shaulis-Powell, 1999-NMCA-090, ¶ 12, the Circuit Courts of Appeal similarly held that there was probable cause for a search warrant, such that the officer’s threat to obtain one did not render the defendant’s subsequent consent involuntary. See Evans, 27 F.3d at 1231; Kaplan, 895 F.2d at 622. The substantial evidence supporting a finding of probable cause in those cases is instructive.
by John Wesley Hall
Criminal Defense Lawyer and
Search and seizure law consultant
Little Rock, Arkansas
Contact: forhall @ aol.com / The Book www.johnwesleyhall.com
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't." —Me
"Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well." –Josh Billings (pseudonym of Henry Wheeler Shaw), Josh Billings on Ice, and Other Things (1868) (erroneously attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson, among others)
“I am still learning.” —Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500's)).
"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud
"It is a pleasant world we live in, sir, a very pleasant world. There are bad people in it, Mr. Richard, but if there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers."
—Charles Dickens, “The Old Curiosity Shop ... With a Frontispiece. From a Painting by Geo. Cattermole, Etc.” 255 (1848)
"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced."
—Williams
v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold,
J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).
"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws,
or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence." —Mapp
v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).
"Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment."
—Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).
"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that
bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the
police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater
than it is today."
— Terry
v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their
property."
—Entick
v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)
"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have
frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And
so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his
case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth
Amendment."
—United
States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated
here, has not–to put it mildly–run smooth."
—Chapman
v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the
bottom of a turntable."
—Arizona
v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)
"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly
exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth
Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in
an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."
—Katz
v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
“Experience should teach us to be most on guard to
protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born
to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded
rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men
of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
—United
States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
“Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted
intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by
government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose
it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.”
—United
States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)
"You can't always get what you want /
But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need."
—Mick Jagger & Keith Richards
"In Germany, they first came for the communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for
the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came
for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration
camp]
“You know, most men would get discouraged by
now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!”
---Pepé Le Pew
"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers,
is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which
reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that
those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being
judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting
out crime."
—Johnson
v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)