09-3804 U.S. v. Lewis

Listen to this article

Search and Seizure
Warrantless entry; consent

Consent to a warrantless entry is not invalid, even though it was obtained by a private security guard accompanied by detectives, rather than the detectives themselves.
“Lewis’s primary argument is that his consent was invalid because Lucas, and not the detectives, engaged him and asked for permission to enter the apartment. But Lewis points to nothing in the case law that requires an explicit, verbal exchange between the police and the defendant as a predicate to a finding of consent. Cf. Wesela, 223 F.3d at 661 (‘The fact that there was no direct verbal exchange between [the police] and [the defendant’s wife] in which she explicitly said “it’s o.k. with me for you to search the apartment,” is immaterial, as the events indicate her implicit consent.’). It is true that Lucas led Lewis to believe that he was there about a tenancy issue. But there is no evidence suggesting that this was a ruse; Lucas was at the apartment to follow up on the violation notice. He asked the police to accompany him for his safety because gunshots had been fired from the apartment a few days earlier. And the facts remain that, after he opened the door, Lewis could clearly see that the two other men were police officers, the men identified themselves as such and said they were with Lucas, and Lewis, after being given an opportunity to do so, did not object to entry. Accordingly, Lewis’s consent was valid.”
Affirmed.

09-3804 U.S. v. Lewis

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Randa, J., Evans, J.