United States v. Giraldo
1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11252, 1990 WL 125699, 743 F. Supp. 152 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Consent to enter a dwelling is invalid under the Fourth Amendment when it is obtained by law enforcement officers who falsely claim to be investigating a life-threatening emergency. Any subsequent consent to search, obtained moments after such an illegal entry, is tainted by the initial illegality and is also invalid.
Facts:
- A law enforcement agent knocked on the defendant's apartment door.
- The agent falsely identified herself as a gas company worker and stated she was checking for a gas leak.
- Believing there was a potential emergency, the defendant invited the agents into his apartment.
- Once inside, the agents revealed they were police officers.
- The agents asked for and received verbal permission from the defendant to search the apartment.
- The defendant then read and signed a written consent-to-search form.
- The agents searched the apartment and found cocaine and a large amount of cash.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was indicted in U.S. District Court on one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
- The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in the search of his apartment.
- The District Court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion.
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 consent to enter and search a private dwelling violate the Fourth Amendment when that consent is obtained by police officers who falsely claim to be investigating a life-threatening emergency, such as a gas leak?
Opinions:
Majority - Weinstein, District Judge
Yes, this consent violates the Fourth Amendment. Consent to enter a home is rendered involuntary when it is obtained by police fabricating a life-threatening emergency. The court distinguished this case from others where police deception was permitted (e.g., an officer posing as a drug buyer in Lewis v. United States), because here, the defendant did not invite the agents in to further an unlawful purpose. Instead, the ruse created a coercive situation where the defendant's only 'free choice' was to refuse entry and risk a catastrophic explosion. This form of deception is particularly egregious due to public policy concerns; it erodes the public's trust in real emergency services, which could endanger lives in the future if citizens hesitate to cooperate during actual emergencies. Because the initial entry was illegal due to the coercive deception, the subsequent written consent was not valid. Applying the test from Brown v. Illinois, the consent was not purged of the primary taint because only a few minutes passed, there were no intervening circumstances, and the official misconduct was flagrant.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical limit on the use of deception by law enforcement to gain entry into a home. While some ruses are permissible, the court holds that fabricating a life-threatening emergency crosses the constitutional line into coercion, rendering any resulting consent involuntary. The ruling creates a strong public policy protection for the integrity of emergency services, arguing that law enforcement tactics must not undermine public trust in entities like the fire department or utility companies. This case will guide future courts in distinguishing between permissible, strategic deception and impermissible, coercive deception that vitiates consent under the Fourth Amendment.
