911 call said that shots had been fired eight hours earlier, and someone was likely injured at a particular address. The dispatcher, however, neglected to tell the officers the timing of the shots fired. When they got to the scene, they found bullet holes in the outside walls and, looking through a window, bullet holes on inside walls, and no one answered the door, so they went in through a window. Inside, they found the defendant asleep with an automatic weapon. The entry was valid under the community caretaking function based on what they saw when they arrived that corroborated the dispatch, despite the mistake of fact which was reasonable. United States v. Huffman, 461 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. August 30, 2006).<\/p>\n
While the IRS cannot conduct a civil investigation as a front for a criminal investigation, tax investigations evolve from civil to criminal, and that is not an abuse of the IRS’s power to investigate. United States v. Richardson, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61193 (S.D. Ohio August 29, 2006):<\/p>\n
There was no Fourth Amendment violation from use of the undercover agents because persons act at their own peril when they assume persons with whom they are dealing are not government agents. See United States v. White,<\/em> 401 U.S. 745, 749 (1971); see also id.<\/em> at 752 (“Inescapably, one contemplating illegal activities must realize and risk that his companions may be reporting to the police.”); Lewis v. United States,<\/em> 385 U.S. 206 (1966) (holding no Fourth Amendment violation where undercover federal narcotics agent entered defendant’s home to purchase marijuana). Therefore, the IRS’s use of undercover agents in this case does not require dismissal of the indictment or suppression of evidence. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP.b2evSmil Continue reading