• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Real Estate agent lets ATF into house; agents see gun case, ammo; get warrant

VAopencarry

Regular Member
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
2,151
Location
Berryville-ish, VA
What troubles me is that the court has allowed as legal, a LEO to enter a private home for the express purpose of investigating a crime, using subterfuge and without a warrant. That would seem to run afoul of the Constitution every day of the week.


+10!!!!

I don't know how a court could decide their entry was lawful. So cops can pose as a repairman or anything else to go snooping around your house? The fact the guy was, in fact, guilty doesn't matter. Their entry was not Constitutional.
 

NovaCop

New member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
471
Location
, ,
+10!!!!

I don't know how a court could decide their entry was lawful. So cops can pose as a repairman or anything else to go snooping around your house? The fact the guy was, in fact, guilty doesn't matter. Their entry was not Constitutional.

Can you cite how it was not constitutional? The felon consented to letting strangers into his house to check it out on the market. There was no sign with terms of the consent stating law enforcement was not allowed. Let me ask you this, do you think undercover cops posing as drug buyers to get into crack houses is unconstitutional? It's basically the same thing. If you consent for someone to come in... that's legal.

Like mentioned above, the police only did this because they were investigating this guy in the first place. No LEO will dress like repair men just to snoop into random houses, come on it's not a govt. conspiracy out there.
 
Last edited:

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Can you cite how it was not constitutional? The felon consented to letting strangers into his house to check it out on the market. There was no sign with terms of the consent stating law enforcement was not allowed. Let me ask you this, do you think undercover cops posing as drug buyers to get into crack houses is unconstitutional? It's basically the same thing. If you consent for someone to come in... that's legal.

Like mentioned above, the police only did this because they were investigating this guy in the first place. No LEO will dress like repair men just to snoop into random houses, come on it's not a govt. conspiracy out there.

NovaCop10 is correct. LEOs can use deception with impunity. It may not be nice, but is not unreasonable under the Fourth amendment.
 
Last edited:

All American Nightmare

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
521
Location
Never Never Land
Can you cite how it was not constitutional? The felon consented to letting strangers into his house to check it out on the market. There was no sign with terms of the consent stating law enforcement was not allowed. Let me ask you this, do you think undercover cops posing as drug buyers to get into crack houses is unconstitutional? It's basically the same thing. If you consent for someone to come in... that's legal.

Like mentioned above, the police only did this because they were investigating this guy in the first place. No LEO will dress like repair men just to snoop into random houses, come on it's not a govt. conspiracy out there.
:shocker: For once we agree that is was legal But....It does not make It fair.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP LEOs can use deception with impunity. It may not be nice, but it not unreasonable under the Fourth amendment.

Not according to the courts, anyway.

As has already been pointed out by people far wiser than me, it is folly to let the government decide which rights it will respect and which it will whittle away at.
 

Neplusultra

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
2,224
Location
Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
Not according to the courts, anyway.

As has already been pointed out by people far wiser than me, it is folly to let the government decide which rights it will respect and which it will whittle away at.

Cites? For further discussion. I would really like to hear this, honestly. What courts have said so?
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
For further discussion? To what end?

The presentation of the idea that Felony Status is just another way to abridge the Constitution, is about the only productive concept I can see coming from this thread. Being an idea, I doubt many citations will be found.

Too many laws exist that can make a person a Felon without even being aware. That's what the creation of victim-less crimes is for; just a big pile of arbitrary and capricious gotchas that remove a person from their Rights.
 

scarletwahoo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
76
Location
, ,
The guy was a felon. I don't see any problems here.

There are plenty of nonviolent felons. As one person here said, you can because a felon for pulling up election signs. You can become a felon for speeding 15 mph over on a highway. You can become a felon for simply smoking pot.

The whole idea of having felons sickens me. They should have all of the same rights as any other citizen. Why should we create a legal loophole that creates a second class citizen and throws out any protection under the constitution. If you support gun rights, you should support it across the board, you can't pick and choose who should be allowed to own a firearm.
 

NovaCop

New member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
471
Location
, ,
There are plenty of nonviolent felons. As one person here said, you can because a felon for pulling up election signs. You can become a felon for speeding 15 mph over on a highway. You can become a felon for simply smoking pot.

The whole idea of having felons sickens me. They should have all of the same rights as any other citizen. Why should we create a legal loophole that creates a second class citizen and throws out any protection under the constitution. If you support gun rights, you should support it across the board, you can't pick and choose who should be allowed to own a firearm.

I understand that not all felonies are violent. However, I believe that getting convicted of a felony means that you are most likely not a responsible enough person to carry a loaded firearm in society. I have gone through life finding it easy not to get charged with a felony or even a misdemeanor. Call me crazy, but I found it not difficult to abide by simple laws. In so many instances, felonies are plead down to misdemeanors, especially for first time felony offenders. Our court systems are soft. It's very unusual for someone to get a felony for pulling up campaign signs (I still am not sure if I trust that post). I would be in favor of returning gun rights to felons who remain completely clean from any arrests in 10 years. So if I agreed with your reasoning (can't pick or choose), then I would have to support 14 yr olds carrying loaded handguns? Is that what you support? The Constitution is a living document, which evolves as society evolves to keep up with the new demands and social expectations. I know we have gotten into a long debate about the Constitution being a living document, and this post is in no way attempting to instigate another debate about that.

What state can you be a felon for 15 over the speed limit? Just curious.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP LEOs can use deception with impunity. It may not be nice, but it [is] not unreasonable under the Fourth amendment.

Not according to the courts, anyway.

Cites? For further discussion. I would really like to hear this, honestly. What courts have said so?

I don't know of any cases that expressly said so. I was referring more to the general concept that since it exists pervasively, the courts are doing nothing to prevent it.

When I last checked on it, I just googled the term "permissible deception." Plenty of info came up.

Andrew Napolitano, in his book, Constitutional Chaos, touches on the upper end of the scale of police deception--in the form of enticement and entrapment. The government deceiving a person so much so that they encourage him to commit a crime. Napolitano doesn't particularly address the deception angle, just the entrapment. But, the one is the natural extension of the other.

Recall Randy Weaver's original brush with BATmen--they entrapped him into making a sawed-off shotgun or short-barrelled rifle or something.

Recall the several people out west earlier this year, arrested on terrorism charges. Part of that story was government agents encouraging them.

The forces of light are having an effect, though. I read just the other day a newspaper article on the Catonsville failed-bomber. The fedgov went to a lot of trouble to make sure they alleged to the press all the little angles about the bomber's consent and willingness--direct quotes of the security apparatus agents and bomber in [strike]undercover[/strike] permissible-deception conversations. Whether those quotes are genuine remains to be seen; but the fedgov felt it important to get the info into the press to undermine an entrapment defense, or undermine an anti-entrapment campaign by folks who view these "terror" arrests as false-flag operations to simply justify additional fedgov overreach, growth and budget.
 

palerider116

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
572
Location
Unknown
There is a difference between a felon who is sent away for fraud or non violent crimes versus the robber, rapist, murderer.

I can't see the wisdom in letting someone convicted of a violent felony back on the streets with a firearm. Rearming a predator is dangerous at best and deadly at its worst.

Its definitely a difficult issue to mull over.
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Noncoercive Deception

SCOTUS allows deception as long as it is noncoercive.

For example, see here:

Deceit, Pretext, and Trickery: Investigate Lies by the Police

Lying meant to effectuate a search or a seizure is routine practice for many police officers. Such lies come in at least two varieties. The first involves lying about police authority to conduct the search or seizure. For instance, police may state that they do not need a warrant when they know the law requires they have one, assert they have a warrant when they do not, or state they can get a warrant when in fact they know they can not. This last ruse, designed to encourage acquiescence from an otherwise unwilling person, is one among many deceitful ways of obtaining consent; police have also been known, for instance, to get motorists to sign a consent form for a car search by misrepresenting the form as a ticket. Finally, the police may simply make up a reason for conducting a search and seizure, such as when they fabricate a traffic violation as a ground for stopping a car.

PDF text is here; this is also useful reading.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
I've gone both ways on the permissibility of this search and how the courts might rule. Finally, I think I've got it.

First, if I'm reading correctly, the police knew whose house it was, and used the showing agent under pretext in order to gain access. This would be no different than using a landlord's privilege to enter rental property, or to gain access through a bogus welfare check, all in order to look for something they could then use in order to secure a warrant.

All of that taken together should make the initial entry imperimissible, and the subsequent warrant invalid. It's one thing to stand on the sidewalk and see a prohibited item and then procure a warrant; it's another thing altogether to gain otherwise-unauthorized access through pretext and subterfuge just to see if there is anything for which they can procure a warrant.

If this search is allowed to stand, undercover police could just call Pop-A-Lock to let them into a drug dealer's car under the pretext that it was theirs.
 

NovaCop

New member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
471
Location
, ,
I've gone both ways on the permissibility of this search and how the courts might rule. Finally, I think I've got it.

First, if I'm reading correctly, the police knew whose house it was, and used the showing agent under pretext in order to gain access. This would be no different than using a landlord's privilege to enter rental property, or to gain access through a bogus welfare check, all in order to look for something they could then use in order to secure a warrant.

All of that taken together should make the initial entry imperimissible, and the subsequent warrant invalid. It's one thing to stand on the sidewalk and see a prohibited item and then procure a warrant; it's another thing altogether to gain otherwise-unauthorized access through pretext and subterfuge just to see if there is anything for which they can procure a warrant.

If this search is allowed to stand, undercover police could just call Pop-A-Lock to let them into a drug dealer's car under the pretext that it was theirs.

Bogus welfare check? What is bogus about a welfare check? Please explain!?!

Unauthorized entry? What was unauthorized about it? They merely pretended to be interested in buying a house. What if the officer was in fact interested in the house and saw illegal things (knew the owner was a convicted felon with firearms)?

Your example of using a landlord's key to enter a rental property does not hold value with this case. If a LEO would ask or pressure a landlord (start the process) to get a key to enter a house (no exigent circumstances). In this case, they were invited in. I think it's easy to see the differences. A house for sale having an open house vs. LEOs sneaking into an apt. via landlord key? Obvious difference.

I know it's illegal for a LEO to have a second party act for them as a govt. official. I will find a cite for this if requested, or please help if you know (don't feel like wasting time). Example- LEOs can't have a parents search a child's room for drugs and then turn over the drugs for evidence. Same situation. I'm sure the all mighty "User" would be able to back me with some cites about LEOs not being able to use a second party to do LEO "business".

Against busting drug dealers?!? Need a fix?

I think we can all agree that the defendant in this case was guilty of a felony (on face value). Why should we argue that he is entitled to impunity and should be let off? I think that to maintain integrity and a positive image of legal gun owners, they should be pro- legal citizens carrying and against criminals. My 2.
 
Last edited:

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
I think we can all agree that the defendant in this case was guilty of a felony (on face value). Why should we argue that he is entitled to impunity and should be let off? I think that to maintain integrity and a positive image of legal gun owners, they should be pro- legal citizens carrying and against criminals. My 2.
Are you really going to stand by this? Really?

The question is whether or not the initial entry was legal and/or ethical. If it turns out that it was not, do you really need someone to explain to you why they are entitled to impunity?

You really are a "desired ends justify any means" kind of a guy... and that's exactly the kind of LEO that the courts have to keep in check by occasionally tossing out the fruit of their poisonous trees. I'm sure it really steams you when that happens, but you know what... if the tree weren't poisonous due to some improper action by a LEO, then they wouldn't have to throw out the fruit!

I always try to give the benefit of the doubt to all sides of a debate, but dude, you make it very difficult. Maybe you should try to get some sleep before posting after a long shift! :)

TFred
 
Top