Opinion ID: 389566
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Purchase of Drugs Fourth Amendment

Text: 11 Ms. Davis asserts that the undercover officers were in her residence without her knowledge and consent to engage in a drug transaction and that this conduct violated her fourth amendment rights. 12 A purchase of drugs by a law enforcement officer acting as an undercover agent is not a search or seizure under the fourth amendment. Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 210, 87 S.Ct. 424, 427, 17 L.Ed.2d 312 (1966). When outsiders are invited into a home for the purpose of transacting unlawful business, a law enforcement officer, acting as a private citizen, may accept an invitation to do business and may enter the premises for the very purpose contemplated by the occupant without infringing upon the occupant's fourth amendment rights. 4 Id. at 211, 87 S.Ct. at 427. 13 Prior to trial, Ms. Davis had asserted that there were no unlawful drugs at her residence but was aware of the purpose of Ms. Preston's and the agents' visit. Later she testified that she and her co-appellant, Mr. Davis, spoke with Ms. Preston and one or both of them set up the drug transaction. 14 The record establishes that Ms. Davis conversed with the informant, Ms. Preston, and discussed with her the sale of methamphetamine. At trial Ms. Davis conceded that she personally admitted the agents into her residence but asserts that she did not become aware of the drug transaction until after their departure. 15 The crucial element in deciding issues like the one presented here is not whether the agents' identities were known, but rather whether the illegal activity that took place on the premises was known by the party extending the invitation to enter. The conclusion supported by the record is that appellant knew of the purpose of the agents' visit, i. e. to purchase the drugs, and consented to their presence in her residence for that purpose. See United States v. Baldwin, 621 F.2d 251, 253 (6th Cir. 1980). 16 Thus, the drugs obtained at appellants' home came into possession of the undercover agents through a valid purchase from appellants. 5 Such a purchase does not violate the fourth amendment as a matter of law. See Lewis v. United States, supra, 385 U.S. at 212, 87 S.Ct. at 428.