United States v. Hankins
195 F. App'x 295 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment does not protect a person's misplaced belief that a confidant will not reveal their wrongdoing; therefore, it is not an unreasonable search to simultaneously and surreptitiously transmit and record conversations from a defendant's home when one party to the conversation, a government informant, has consented.
Facts:
- Following a tip, police discovered Harold G. Hankins was growing marijuana on his property.
- After a warranted search of his home and property yielded 212 marijuana plants, paraphernalia, and firearms, police arrested Hankins and seized his truck.
- Two days later, officers seized $2,000 in cash that Hankins had hidden in the truck, and Director Jim Devasher of the drug task force refused to return it.
- Hankins, angered by the raid and seizure, approached his long-time friend James Chick and discussed hiring someone to kill Director Devasher.
- Unbeknownst to Hankins, Chick was working as a confidential informant for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).
- At the request of an ATF agent, Chick visited Hankins' home on three separate occasions while wearing a concealed microphone and transmitter.
- Hankins invited Chick into his home for these visits, during which their conversations were secretly transmitted to and recorded by law enforcement.
- During the recorded conversations, Hankins made numerous statements about wanting to kill or cripple Director Devasher and Sheriff Wallace Whittaker in retaliation for his arrest.
Procedural Posture:
- Harold G. Hankins was charged in a superceding indictment in the United States District Court.
- Prior to trial, Hankins filed a motion to suppress the audio tape recordings obtained via the informant, arguing they were the fruit of an unconstitutional search. The District Court denied the motion.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Hankins on all counts.
- Hankins appealed the judgment, including the denial of his suppression motion, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
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, electronic transmission and recording of a defendant's inculpatory statements, made within his home to a confidential informant wearing a concealed microphone, violate the defendant's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The surreptitious transmission of a defendant’s conversation in his home with an informant to monitoring Government agents does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that while the Fourth Amendment provides strong protections for the home, it does not protect a person's 'misplaced belief that a person to whom he voluntarily confides his wrongdoing will not reveal it.' Citing precedents like Hoffa v. United States and United States v. White, the court explained that when Hankins voluntarily invited Chick into his home and spoke with him, he assumed the risk that Chick could be a government agent or could report the conversation to authorities. The court held that if an agent's testimony about a conversation is constitutionally permissible, a simultaneous electronic recording of that same conversation does not create a Fourth Amendment violation. Hankins lost any reasonable expectation of privacy in the statements once he shared them with another person, even within the confines of his home.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the 'misplaced trust' or 'false friend' doctrine, confirming its application even within the heightened privacy zone of a person's home. The ruling clarifies that the Fourth Amendment protects places from physical intrusion but does not protect a defendant's mistaken assumption about a confidant's loyalty. It solidifies the principle that technological enhancements, such as a hidden transmitter, do not create a search under the Fourth Amendment so long as one party to the conversation consents to the recording. This precedent is significant for law enforcement, as it validates the use of wired informants to gather evidence inside a suspect's residence without needing a warrant.
