United States v. Montes-Reyes
2008 WL 1734805, 547 F. Supp. 2d 281, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30102 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Consent to a search is not voluntary under the Fourth Amendment if obtained through a police ruse that creates a false sense of exigent circumstances, thereby depriving an individual of the ability to make a fair and unconstrained assessment of the need to surrender their privacy.
Facts:
- DEA agents, as part of a task force, were conducting surveillance on Leonardo Montes-Reyes at the Newton Hotel in Manhattan.
- DEA Agent Luna and other officers knocked on the door of Montes-Reyes's hotel room, room 814.
- Agent Luna identified himself as a police officer, showed a police badge, and, speaking in Spanish, told Montes-Reyes he was looking for a missing girl.
- Agent Luna showed Montes-Reyes a flier with a picture of a 4-year-old girl and the words 'Endangered Missing' to support his story.
- Montes-Reyes consented to let the officers enter the room to check for the missing girl.
- In reality, the agents were investigating Montes-Reyes for drug dealing, and the missing girl story was a ruse to gain consent to enter and search the room.
- Once inside, Agent Luna asked for and received consent to search a heavy black bag for guns.
- Upon opening the bag, agents discovered clothing with a powdery substance in the lining that was consistent with heroin.
Procedural Posture:
- Leonardo Montes-Reyes was arrested following a search of his hotel room.
- Montes-Reyes filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to suppress the physical evidence found in the search and statements he made.
- The District Court held an evidentiary hearing to receive testimony from the law enforcement officers involved in the search and arrest.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is consent to search a hotel room voluntary under the Fourth Amendment when it is obtained by law enforcement officers who falsely claim to be investigating an 'Endangered Missing' child to create a sense of exigent circumstances?
Opinions:
Majority - Denise Cote
No. Consent to search a hotel room is not voluntary when obtained through a ruse that creates a false sense of exigent circumstances. The court reasoned that the 'missing girl' ruse created a false emergency, which deprived Montes-Reyes of the ability to make a free and unconstrained choice about surrendering his privacy. Similar to a ruse involving a gas leak, this 'extreme' misrepresentation of purpose exploited a citizen's sense of civic duty to assist in what appeared to be a grave emergency, thereby amounting to a form of coercion. The court distinguished this from permissible deceptions, such as undercover work, where a suspect voluntarily engages in criminal activity with the agent. The subsequent written consent and consent to search the bag were also invalid as they were tainted by the initial illegal entry, and the government failed to show that the taint had dissipated.
Analysis:
This case provides a crucial distinction in Fourth Amendment consent jurisprudence regarding police deception. It clarifies that while some ruses, like an officer acting undercover, are permissible, a ruse that fabricates an extreme exigent circumstance (like a missing child) is coercive and invalidates consent. The decision establishes that exploiting a citizen's sense of civic duty to assist in a fake emergency overbears their will, making their consent involuntary. This holding provides a boundary for law enforcement tactics and reinforces the principle that consent must be a product of a 'free and unconstrained choice,' not one manipulated by a manufactured crisis.
