Opinion ID: 2817226
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The officers’ entry

Text: Lee admits that Harrison physically allowed the officers to enter the apartment, but takes issue with the officers’ failure to “disclose their intentions or purpose” of the search. He claims that the officers’ omission of their purpose—to search the premises—is a misrepresentation that negates Harrison’s consent. But any alleged misrepresentation by the officers is distinguishable from the outright deception that this court has found to undermine consent in prior cases. See, No. 14-3929 United States v. Lee Page 7 e.g., United States v. Hardin, 539 F.3d 404, 424-25 (6th Cir. 2008) (holding that a government agent’s “ruse that he was investigating a water leak invalidated any possible consent” where “the effect of the ruse is to convince the resident that he or she has no choice but to invite the undercover officer in”). The officers’ entry in the present case was clearly permissible in light of United States v. Carter, 378 F.3d 584, 587 (6th Cir. 2004), where the defendant allowed officers who had first identified themselves as “housekeeping” into his hotel room. Despite the initial misrepresentation, this court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the defendant had validly consented to the officers’ entry because “[t]he investigating officers were instantly recognizable as policemen when [the defendant] opened the door. They properly asked permission to enter, and [the defendant] stepped back, letting them in.” Id. at 588. No initial misrepresentation was made here, and Lee does not dispute that the officers were plainly identifiable or that Harrison, as Lee’s coresident, was authorized to grant the officers entry. Nor does the fact that the officers would have entered even without consent invalidate the consent that Harrison actually gave. See id. at 589 (“[The defendant] makes much of the fact that [the detective] apparently intended in any event to enter the room to seize the blunt. What [the detective] might have done had consent not been given is, of course, irrelevant.”). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in finding that Harrison validly consented to the officers’ entry.