Talk Radio News Service: News, Politics, Media

Pearson v. Callahan

The "consent-once-removed" is a doctrine which allows multiple police officers to enter a home once one police officer (generally an undercover officer) is invited in. The question in this case is whether the same doctrine applies to an undercover informer. In this case, an informant told police that Callahan was selling methamphetamine. Police set the informant up with money, a wire, and a signal for officers to enter. The informant went to Callahan's home and bought some meth, then signaled police to come in and arrest Callahan. Callahan argued at trial that his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures had been violated.

The lower courts agreed, and the Supreme Court today indicated it might uphold those decisions. Justice Souter took the lead in questioning, pointing out that exceptions to the warrant requirement for searches have in the past been granted due to necessity of some kind; in this case, police had two hours between the informant's contact and when they returned to the house, plenty of time to obtain a warrant. The officers claimed they suspected the meth might be sold or destroyed, so they didn't have probable cause to get a warrant, but Justice Souter incredulously said that was "not a serious answer." While Callahan's lawyer argued that the "consent-once-removed" rule was unconstitutional even in the case of undercover police, the Justices were hesitant to accept that view: Justice Alito in particular expressed concern that police going into a house to protect an undercover office would have to violate the Constitution to do so. Justice Breyer, on the other hand, expressed some doubt about the correctness of the consent-once-removed doctrine, indicating the Court may end up with a 3-way split: some Justices invalidating the rule for police and informants, some keeping it for police but not informants, and some expanding it to informants.