Facts
- A federal narcotics agent, using a false name, telephoned Duke Lee Lewis and stated he wanted to buy marijuana based on a purported mutual contact.
- Lewis agreed and directed the agent to Lewis’s home to complete the sale.
- The agent went to the home, was admitted, discussed possible future purchases, paid $50, and received multiple bags of marijuana.
- A second, nearly identical controlled buy occurred two weeks later after another phone call and invitation to the home.
- Lewis was indicted on two counts for unlawful transfers of marijuana under 26 U.S.C. § 4742(a).
- Lewis moved to suppress the marijuana and related conversations, arguing the agent’s deceptive entry into his home without a warrant constituted an illegal search and seizure.
- The district court denied suppression and, after a bench trial, convicted Lewis on both counts; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
- Whether the Fourth Amendment is violated when an undercover agent misrepresents his identity, is invited into a suspect’s home to purchase narcotics, and the purchased narcotics and related conversations are introduced at trial without a warrant.
- Whether an agent’s deception about identity vitiates consent for entry into a home when the entry is for the exact illicit transaction contemplated by the occupant.
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- The Court held there was no Fourth Amendment violation on these facts.
- The Court upheld admission of the narcotics purchased and the agent’s testimony about the transaction and conversations.
Legal Principles
- The government’s use of undercover agents and deception is not, by itself, an unlawful search or seizure.
- When an occupant invites an outsider into a home for the purpose of conducting illegal commercial activity, the Fourth Amendment does not bar a government agent from entering pursuant to that invitation, even if the agent conceals his official identity.
- Fourth Amendment concerns depend on the scope of what the agent “saw, heard, or took”; no violation occurs where the agent neither observes nor seizes anything unrelated to the purpose of the invitation and takes only what the occupant voluntarily exposes as part of the illegal transaction.
- A defendant assumes the risk that a person invited into the home for illegal business may be a government agent who will later testify about what occurred.
Conclusion
Because Lewis invited the undercover agent into his home for the specific purpose of selling marijuana and the agent’s conduct stayed within that invited purpose, the controlled buys did not constitute an unreasonable search or seizure, and the evidence was properly admitted.