A federal appeals court said Wednesday that law enforcement officers can lie to gain consent to search your home.
The split decision from a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals was written by Judge William Pryor, whose name President Trump included on his Supreme Court short lists to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia. If another high court seat opens during Trump’s presidency, Pryor’s name looks likely to resurface as a contender.
“Not all deception by law enforcement invalidates voluntary consent” to a search, Pryor wrote in affirming the lower courts’ rulings in U.S. v. Eric Jermaine Spivey, Chenequa Austin.
“Austin and Spivey deride the ‘shocking’ nature of the ‘misconduct’ in this case, but we are ‘not empowered to forbid law enforcement practices simply because [we] consider them distasteful,'” Pryor wrote. “The district court did not clearly err in determining that the ‘ruse’ did not coerce Austin into giving her consent involuntarily.”
Austin and Spivey, who lived in the same house, shared a “penchant” for credit-card fraud and were twice burglarized. Police caught the burglar, who told the police that Austin and Spivey’s residence had evidence of credit-card fraud.
“Two officers, one posing as a crime-scene technician, came to their house on the pretense of following up on the burglaries, but mainly, unbeknownst to them, to investigate them for suspected fraud,” the court’s opinion noted. “After the officers saw a card-embossing machine, stacks of cards and a lot of high-end merchandise in plain view, they informed Spivey that they investigated credit-card fraud. Spivey then consented to a full search that turned up a weapon, drugs and additional evidence of fraud.”
Austin and Spivey later sought to supress the evidence collected by the police officers’ “ruse,” but a district court denied the motion because it said Austin consented to the search voluntarily and Spivey’s later consent eliminated any violation that occurred.
Since law enforcement’s search was made by voluntary consent, the 11th Circuit said the police did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Judge Beverly Martin dissented from Pryor’s opinion and wrote that she thought it was “clear” that Austin did not “voluntarily” give the officers consent to search the residence.
“This litigation could have easily been avoided. Instead of planning their ruse, the officers could have gotten a warrant,” Martin wrote. “There is no exception that fits this case. I am concerned that the majority opinion blesses the deliberate circumvention of constitutional protections, and in this way undermines the public trust in police.”
