Opinion ID: 2980569
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Officers’ Ruse

Text: Because the initial encounter between Bunch and Gregory was consensual, the question then becomes whether the consent was negated by the officers’ use of a ruse. In some instances, a ruse or trick by the police can undermine an otherwise consensual encounter. See, e.g., United States v. Hardin, 539 F.3d 404, 424-27 (6th Cir. 2008) (finding a Fourth Amendment violation where apartment manager, at direction of police, carried out a ruse involving a water leak prior to officers’ serving arrest warrant). Importantly, the question is not whether Gregory may have declined Bunch’s request had he known the officer’s true motivation. Rather, the question under the Fourth Amendment is whether the “‘police misrepresentation of purpose [was] so extreme that it deprive[d] the individual of the ability to make a fair assessment of the need to surrender his privacy.’” Hardin, 539 F.3d at 425 (quoting 2 Wayne R. LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure § 3.10(c) (3d ed. 2007)). Essentially, the question this court must ask is whether the ruse created a scenario where Gregory “ha[d] no choice” but to concede his privacy interests. Id. (quoting United States v. Copeland, No. 95-5596, 1996 WL 306556,  n.3 (6th Cir. June 6, 1996)). The Hardin court concluded that “the ruse regarding the water leak presented a situation in which an individual would feel ‘no choice but to invite the undercover officer in’ and any consent was invalid.” Id. (quoting Copeland, 1996 WL 306556 at  n.3). This case does not present the type of situation addressed in Hardin. Although Gregory believed that he would be traveling to his residence to examine evidence in the arson investigation, -5- rather than meet with other officers concerning an ongoing drug case, he was fully aware that he would be accompanying a law enforcement officer. By contrast, in Hardin, the defendant believed he was interacting simply with an apartment manager, not a government agent. Moreover, the water leak ruse in Hardin undoubtedly created a sense of urgency and compulsion for the defendant who was residing in the apartment. Despite the ruse in this case, Gregory maintained “the ability to make a fair assessment of the need to surrender his privacy.” Id. at 425.