Consent procured by police lies was invalid. United States v. Lopez-Lopez, 443 F. Supp. 2d 1130 (W.D. Mo. August 7, 2006):<\/p>\n
From the outset of the interrogation, the police intended to deceive Defendant and impermissibly exceed the scope of Defendant’s consent. The whole of the interrogation was premised on a series of lies. The detective who obtained consent to search lied to the defendant regarding: (1) the intended purpose of the search; (2) the detectives’ knowledge of drugs being in the residence; and (3) the fact whether the detective shuffled through the documents he told Defendant he was going back to get, implying that he would be searching only that portion of the residence where the documents had initially been found. Such affirmative misrepresentations are nothing more than consent through deception, and accordingly constitute implied coercion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Similarly, see Czerniak v. Owens, 2006 Ohio 4436, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 4360 (6th Dist. August 25, 2006), where an Ohio worker’s comp recipient alleged that a ruse entry into her house where she was running a foster cat operation by Ohio worker’s comp investigators violated her Fourth Amendment and privacy rights under Ohio law. The Lexis summary:<\/p>\n
The investigators said they wanted to adopt a cat from the recipient, who ran a foster home for cats. They secretly videotaped the interior of her home. The appellate court held they were not entitled to summary judgment as they did not show (1) a search warrant was not required, or (2) that the recipient consented to their search, or (3) qualified immunity protected them. A warrant was required as they gained entry by fabricating identities and stating false pretenses. The Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation’s policy required a warrant. They did not obtain valid consent to enter the home. Fostering cats was a legal activity, so they could not enter the home without her knowing consent, nor was the home a commercial center of any kind. Potential adopters did not normally view cats in the home. The investigators knew or should have known their acts violated the recipient’s Fourth Amendment rights, as their manual required a warrant. Since the search violated the recipient’s rights, any evidence from it was inadmissible, and qualified immunity did not insulate them.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP.b2evSmil Continue reading