Trooper's lie sets man free.

The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed a Paducah man's drug conviction yesterday, because a state trooper "crossed the line of civilized notions of justice" when he told the man he was investigating that a young girl had been sexually assaulted in the house so the trooper can search the house without a warrant. In the 5-2 ruling, the court acknowledged that not all police lies were unconstitutional, but said the trooper's fabrication "cannot be sanctioned", because it "absolutely undermined" the requirement that consent for warrantless searches be voluntarily obtained without any coercion.
As a part of the court's ruling, Justice Graves found consent for the search was coerced in part because the trooper went to the house so early in the morning. "A knock on the door at 4 a.m. by uniformed police officers is a frightening event in and of itself," Graves wrote. "Couple this knock with a heinous and shameful accusation, such as the rape of a young girl, and nearly any person would feel overwhelmed and stunned." Graves also said that trooper's tactics were unnecessary because he could have investigated further to try to gather evidence to justify a warrant. Moreover, the majority noted, "If the type of ruse utilized by the Trooper was sanctioned by this court, citizens would be discouraged from aiding ... in the apprehension of criminals since they would have no way of knowing whether their assistance was being called upon for the public good or for the purpose of incriminating them." Justice John Roach joined Justice Wintersheimer in dissent to state that consent could have been refused for a search, no matter the reason given for it, but the defendant chose not to. "It is almost beyond belief that any drug dealer with illegal drugs in an apartment would not resist to the utmost anything other than a search before letting law enforcement in the premises," Wintersheimer wrote. As a Constitutional lawyer, I note that many people are unaware they can refuse such a search, much less choose not to do so. Ignorance of the law in this case, however, shouldn't erase the defendant's "consent"; and, neither should the trooper's troubling trickery validate his search and excuse the need for a warrant. So it is back to status quo ante, as the court correctly ruled, to the defendant's obvious satisfaction (and the dissatisfaction of all of us law abiding citizens) who found the outcome "refreshing these days when we seem to be losing more and more of our individual rights."