Lewis v. United States
1966 U.S. LEXIS 3, 385 U.S. 206, 17 L. Ed. 2d 312 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment is not violated when a government agent, by misrepresenting their identity, gains an invitation into a suspect's home for the express purpose of consummating an illegal transaction, as the home is treated as a commercial center for illicit business and loses its special protection for that purpose.
Facts:
- On December 3, 1964, Edward Cass, an undercover federal narcotics agent, telephoned petitioner Lewis's home.
- Cass falsely identified himself as 'Jimmy the Pollack' and stated that a mutual friend referred him for the purpose of purchasing marihuana.
- Lewis invited Cass to his home to conduct the sale.
- Cass went to Lewis's home, was admitted, and purchased a package containing five bags of marihuana from Lewis for $50.
- On December 17, 1964, a second, nearly identical transaction occurred where Cass, again using his false identity, was invited to Lewis's home and purchased another quantity of marihuana.
- During these visits, agent Cass did not see, hear, or take anything that was not directly part of the agreed-upon narcotics transactions.
Procedural Posture:
- Lewis was charged by a two-count indictment in U.S. District Court with violations of federal narcotics laws.
- Lewis filed a pretrial motion to suppress the marihuana and conversations with the agent as evidence, which the District Court denied.
- Following a bench trial, the District Court found Lewis guilty on both counts.
- Lewis, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Lewis's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal agent's warrantless entry into a suspect's home violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches when the agent misrepresents their identity to gain an invitation for the sole purpose of consummating an illegal narcotics transaction?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Warren
No. A warrantless entry into a suspect's home by a government agent does not violate the Fourth Amendment when the agent is invited in for the express purpose of conducting an illegal transaction, even if the invitation is procured by misrepresenting the agent's identity. The Court reasoned that the government is entitled to use decoys and conceal the identity of its agents in the detection of many types of crime. This case is distinguishable from Gouled v. United States, where an agent entered under false pretenses and then conducted a general, secret search. Here, the agent's actions were confined to the specific illegal purpose for which he was invited. When a home is converted into a commercial center for unlawful business, it is not afforded the same level of Fourth Amendment sanctity for that specific business purpose. The agent acted as any private citizen would when accepting an invitation to do business, and did not see or take anything beyond what Lewis intended as part of the transaction.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
No. The entry did not violate the Fourth Amendment because, in relation to the specific transactions, the petitioner's apartment was not a constitutionally protected area. By opening his home for the conduct of a business—the sale of narcotics—and inviting anyone willing to enter to trade, the occupant waives his right to privacy in the premises for that purpose. The agent did no more than any private purchaser would have; he entered for the purpose contemplated by the occupant and took only what was offered for sale. Therefore, there was no intrusion upon the 'sanctity' of the petitioner's home or the 'privacies of life.'
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical 'invited informer' or 'undercover agent' exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement for a home. The Court distinguishes between deception used to gain entry for a specific, invited illegal transaction versus deception used to gain entry for a general, surreptitious search. By creating a 'commercial center for illegal business' theory, the decision allows a home to temporarily lose its special constitutional sanctity when used for such purposes. This ruling provides a constitutional foundation for common and essential law enforcement tactics used to investigate covert crimes like narcotics trafficking, where evidence is difficult to obtain without undercover operations.
