Opinion ID: 558889
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Relationship Between Government and Informant

Text: 18 Ms. Williams asserts Ms. Lloyd became a government agent when she agreed to provide information in exchange for mitigation of her own punishment. Thus, her warrantless search of the apartment was illegal. The question of agency is a matter of law in the context of motions to suppress criminal evidence, subject to de novo review. Pleasant v. Lovell, 876 F.2d 787, 799 (10th Cir.1989); United States v. Lamport, 787 F.2d 474 (10th Cir.), cert. denied 479 U.S. 846 (1986). 19 In Pleasant, we reiterated the test for determining when a private person has become an instrument or agent of the government, turning a search into government action subject to the strictures of the Fourth Amendment. Two critical factors in determining agency are:  '1) whether the government knew of and acquiesced in the intrusive conduct, and 2) whether the party performing the search intended to assist law enforcement efforts or to further his own ends.'  876 F.2d at 797, quoting United States v. Miller, 688 F.2d 652, 657 (9th Cir.1982). 20 We hold that the government's relationship with Ms. Lloyd did not constitute knowledge of and acquiescence in her actions under the first prong of Pleasant. As the trial court reasoned, the government did not tell Ms. Lloyd to look for cocaine in Ms. Williams' apartment; indeed, they did not even know of her presence there. Detective Conner simply made a general suggestion to Ms. Lloyd that she might benefit from sharing any information she had about cocaine dealers. Compare Lamport, 787 F.2d at 476 (trial court properly suppressed a list of patients which secretaries obtained in response to a specific request by investigators); see Miller, 688 F.2d at 657 (police knowledge of a private person's plan to pose as a buyer to seek out a stolen trailer did not create agency relationship in part because officers did not encourage or plant the idea of conducting a private search). Therefore, we reject defendant's argument that Ms. Lloyd was a government agent and that the seized evidence should be suppressed. 21 AFFIRMED.