United States v. Camilo
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18346, 2003 WL 22349675, 287 F. Supp. 2d 446 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless search of a residence is constitutional if an individual with authority provides free and voluntary consent. Evidence discovered in plain view during a lawful entry or found within the scope of a valid consent search is admissible under the Fourth Amendment.
Facts:
- On the morning of November 27, 2002, a team of law enforcement officers went to an apartment to execute an arrest warrant for Juan Camilo.
- Ashley DeJesus, who the officers understood to be Juan Camilo’s wife, answered the door.
- An officer asked DeJesus if they could 'come in and look around,' to which she replied 'yes' and stepped back, holding the door open as they entered.
- The officers proceeded to a rear bedroom where they found Juan Camilo and Bolivar Camilo sleeping, and placed both men under arrest.
- As the men were being restrained with the lights on, an officer saw a large bundle of pills in a partially open suitcase and, in the living room, a scale and small baggies on a table.
- After the arrests, an officer asked DeJesus if there were guns or drugs in the apartment and if they could 'look around' again; she said 'no' to the first question and 'yes' to the second.
- During the subsequent search, an officer discovered that a bathroom medicine cabinet was loose and, upon removing it, found a quantity of drugs hidden in the wall behind it.
Procedural Posture:
- Juan and Bolivar Camilo were indicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on three counts of drug distribution and possession.
- The defendants filed a motion to suppress the physical evidence seized from the apartment where they were arrested, arguing the entry and search violated their Fourth Amendment rights.
- The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion, during which two of the arresting officers testified.
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 warrantless entry into and subsequent search of a residence violate the Fourth Amendment when an occupant verbally consents to an initial entry to 'look around' and later consents to a more specific search for drugs and weapons, leading to the discovery of evidence in plain view and in hidden compartments?
Opinions:
Majority - Koeltl, District Judge
No, the warrantless entry and search of the residence did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the occupant's consent validated the officers' actions. Although the arrest warrant alone was insufficient to justify entry under Payton v. New York due to a lack of evidence that officers had a reasonable belief the suspect resided there, the entry was nonetheless constitutional because Ashley DeJesus voluntarily consented. Her verbal agreement and physical act of holding the door open were not mere acquiescence to authority but a free and unconstrained choice. Once lawfully inside, the pills and drug paraphernalia were admissible under the plain view doctrine, as officers were in a lawful position to see them and their incriminating nature was immediately apparent. Furthermore, DeJesus provided a second, voluntary consent to a broader search for drugs and weapons, which reasonably included looking behind a loose medicine cabinet. This subsequent consent justified the seizure of the drugs hidden in the wall.
Analysis:
This decision demonstrates the significant power of the consent exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. It clarifies that consent can cure other potential constitutional defects in a search, such as an officer's failure to establish the 'reasonable belief' of residency needed to enter a home with only an arrest warrant. The case reinforces that the voluntariness of consent is evaluated under a 'totality of the circumstances' standard, where both words and actions are considered. This ruling serves as a practical reminder that obtaining consent is a crucial tool for law enforcement, as it can validate searches that might otherwise be deemed unconstitutional.
