State v. Hastings
1992 Wash. LEXIS 155, 119 Wash. 2d 229, 830 P.2d 658 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless entry by undercover police officers into a home does not violate the Fourth Amendment when the home has been converted into a commercial center for transacting illegal business and the officers are invited inside for the purpose of conducting that business.
Facts:
- Seattle police received complaints about drug sales occurring at a specific house.
- On November 4, 1986, two undercover officers went to the house.
- The officers knocked, stated they were there to buy drugs, and were invited inside by an occupant.
- Upon entering, the officers saw a line of customers waiting at a table.
- Willie Hastings was seated at the table, from whom each officer purchased a small amount of rock cocaine.
- Based on this transaction, police later obtained and executed a search warrant for the house.
Procedural Posture:
- Willie Hastings was charged in a Washington trial court with two counts of unlawful delivery and one count of possession of a controlled substance.
- Hastings filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence from the officers' entry and the subsequent search, which the trial court denied.
- A jury convicted Hastings on the two delivery charges but was unable to reach a verdict on the possession charge.
- Hastings (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Washington Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- The Supreme Court of Washington granted review of the case.
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 the warrantless entry by undercover police officers into a home, where they are invited for the express purpose of purchasing illegal drugs, violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches?
Opinions:
Majority - Durham, J.
No, the warrantless entry by undercover police officers into a home used for illegal commercial transactions does not violate the Fourth Amendment. An individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a home when it is converted into a commercial center where outsiders are invited to transact unlawful business. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in their own home, is not subject to Fourth Amendment protection. Alternatively, even if the Fourth Amendment did apply, the entry was justified by consent. The occupants voluntarily admitted the officers for the specific illegal purpose they were openly conducting, and the fact that the officers concealed their identities did not invalidate that consent, as their actions did not exceed the scope of the invitation.
Concurring - Utter, J.
No, the entry was constitutional, but the majority's primary reasoning is flawed and dangerous. The Fourth Amendment always protects a home, so the proper analysis is not whether a privacy right was forfeited, but whether the warrantless search was reasonable. The search was reasonable under the consent exception. While the person who consented was not the defendant, it was reasonable for the officers to believe that the individual acting as a doorman at a drug house possessed the apparent authority to admit them for the purpose of buying drugs. The majority's holding that there is 'no reasonable expectation of privacy' in the entire home goes too far and could exempt police conduct from any judicial oversight.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle, derived from Lewis v. United States, that the Fourth Amendment's heightened protection for a home diminishes when the home is used as a public place for illegal commerce. The court provides two distinct justifications for undercover entries: a primary holding that no search occurs because the expectation of privacy is forfeited, and an alternative holding that the entry is a valid consensual search. This dual rationale gives law enforcement significant leeway in conducting undercover operations in residential drug houses, though the concurrence highlights the doctrinal tension and risk of eroding the sanctity of the home by completely removing it from Fourth Amendment protection rather than analyzing the reasonableness of the police conduct.
