United States v. Harrison
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9555, 639 F.3d 1273, 2011 WL 1782961 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Consent to a warrantless search of a home is rendered involuntary under the Fourth Amendment when law enforcement agents use deceitful tactics, such as implying a physical danger to the occupant or community, that create a coercive environment and deprive the individual of the ability to make a fair assessment of whether to surrender their privacy.
Facts:
- ATF Agent Stephen Brenneman began investigating Mr. Harrison after receiving information that he owed a thousand dollars to a suspected firearms trafficker and was selling drugs out of his apartment.
- Agent Brenneman conducted surveillance of Mr. Harrison’s apartment for several months but did not observe evidence of drug trafficking.
- Because the ATF lacked probable cause to request a warrant to search the apartment, Agent Brenneman and ATF Agent Darrell Withem decided to conduct a "knock and talk" with Mr. Harrison in an attempt to gain consent to search the apartment.
- When Mr. Harrison opened his door, Agent Brenneman told him their office received an anonymous phone call about "drugs and bombs" at his apartment and asked if he would mind if they looked around.
- Agent Brenneman then told Mr. Harrison that their boss made them investigate such calls further to "see if there’s any threat or danger to the community."
- Mr. Harrison initially stated he didn't know if he could give permission because it was his girlfriend's apartment, but Agent Brenneman assured him he could consent as he lived there and had control.
- Agent Withem further assured Mr. Harrison, "We’re not here to bust you on a bag of weed. . . . We have bigger fish to fry than a small bag of weed."
- Mr. Harrison then gave the agents permission to search his apartment, during which Agent Brenneman found a loaded handgun hidden in a hole in the drywall underneath a sink.
Procedural Posture:
- Mr. Harrison was charged by indictment with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- Mr. Harrison filed a motion to suppress evidence of the loaded firearm in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, arguing he had not voluntarily consented to the search.
- The district court held a suppression hearing and granted Mr. Harrison's motion to suppress, finding that deceitful tactics used by ATF agents rendered Mr. Harrison’s consent involuntary.
- The United States (Plaintiff-Appellant) appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth 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 consent to search an apartment, obtained through law enforcement agents' deceitful statements implying an anonymous bomb threat and a need to investigate community danger, render the consent involuntary under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge
Yes, consent to search an apartment obtained through law enforcement agents' deceitful statements implying an anonymous bomb threat and a need to investigate community danger renders the consent involuntary under the Fourth Amendment. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding, applying a clear error standard of review for the voluntariness of consent, noting that the government bears the burden of proving consent was freely and voluntarily given, which is determined from the "totality of all the circumstances." The court reiterated that while not all deception invalidates consent, it is a factor, especially when it creates the impression that the defendant will be in physical danger if he or she refuses to consent. The court accepted the district court's plausible interpretation that the agents' statements about "bombs" and "threat or danger to the community" implied a bomb might have been planted, thereby placing Mr. Harrison in fear. This situation presented Mr. Harrison with a coercive choice between denying consent and accepting a perceived risk of harm, or consenting to a search. Such consent cannot be deemed free of coercion. The court distinguished this from undercover operations where the defendant is unaware of law enforcement involvement, emphasizing that here, Mr. Harrison knew he was dealing with ATF agents. The government's failure to meet its burden to show consent was not coerced led to the affirmation of the suppression order.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the boundaries of permissible deception by law enforcement during consensual encounters, particularly in the context of residential searches. It underscores that while some level of subterfuge may be acceptable, misrepresentations that imply physical danger to the occupant or community can cross the line into coercion, thereby invalidating consent. The ruling reinforces the demanding "totality of the circumstances" test and the government's heavy burden to prove voluntariness, serving as a critical check on police power under the Fourth Amendment. This decision will likely influence future cases involving "knock and talk" procedures and deceptive tactics, compelling law enforcement to ensure that consent is truly voluntary and not a product of fear or duress.
