United States v. James David Bosse
898 F.2d 113 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A government agent's entry into a home violates the Fourth Amendment if the agent, known to be a government official, gains access by affirmatively or deliberately misrepresenting the purpose of their investigation, even if consent was given for a different, stated purpose.
Facts:
- Bosse was a licensed firearms dealer who had a pending application for a state license to buy and sell automatic machine guns.
- Robert Dunkin, a state agent, arranged to inspect Bosse's home as part of the state license application process, and Bosse consented to the inspection.
- Mark Rusin, a federal Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent, accompanied Dunkin but did not identify himself as a federal agent or disclose his purpose.
- Dunkin introduced Rusin to Bosse by stating, "he is with me," leading Bosse to believe Rusin was present to assist with the state licensing inspection.
- Rusin's actual purpose was not to assist the state inspection but to conduct a federal investigation into possible federal firearms violations and prepare diagrams for a future federal search warrant.
- At a later date, another ATF agent, Robert Griego, obtained a federal search warrant for Bosse’s home.
- A search conducted pursuant to this warrant led to the discovery of an illegal sawed-off shotgun.
Procedural Posture:
- Bosse was convicted by a jury in a federal district court for unlawfully possessing a sawed-off shotgun.
- After his conviction, Bosse filed a motion for a new trial and a motion to suppress the shotgun, based on newly discovered evidence of the agent's surreptitious entry.
- The district court granted both of Bosse's motions, setting aside the conviction and ordering the shotgun evidence suppressed.
- The United States (the government), as the appellant, appealed the district court's suppression order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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 a federal agent's entry into a home violate the Fourth Amendment when the agent, accompanying a state official who has consent to enter for a specific purpose, deliberately conceals their true, separate federal investigatory purpose?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. The federal agent's entry violates the Fourth Amendment because it was gained by deliberately misrepresenting the purpose of the government investigation. While an undercover agent may conceal their identity to obtain an invitation into a home, a known government agent cannot gain access by being deceptive about the nature of their investigation. Here, state agent Dunkin had consent to enter for a state licensing inspection. By presenting federal agent Rusin as being 'with me,' Rusin's silence amounted to a deliberate misrepresentation of his true purpose, which was to conduct a separate federal investigation. This deception invalidated Bosse's consent for Rusin's entry, making his search illegal under the precedent established in cases like United States v. Little and United States v. Phillips.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the 'ruse entry' doctrine, clarifying the crucial distinction between a permissible concealment of identity (e.g., an undercover officer) and an impermissible misrepresentation of purpose by a known government agent. It establishes that consent for a search is limited to the purpose for which it was given and cannot be expanded by an agent's deception. The case also underscores the importance of the 'independent source' doctrine, illustrating that an initial Fourth Amendment violation does not automatically lead to suppression if the evidence was subsequently obtained through means untainted by the initial illegality.
