Officers Battles and Morrison were called to a scene at San Pablo Dam Road, where they found a man suffering from a gunshot wound. Witnesses told the officers that the driver of a white Cadillac parked in a driveway several houses away had argued with the victim and then driven off. At the driveway near the Cadillac, the officers discovered a trail of blood.

Defendant answered the door of the house when the officers knocked. He said he had been sleeping and had heard nothing. The officers returned to the scene. Shortly thereafter, defendant walked over to the scene. Defendant mentioned, upon the officers questioning him, that he owned two guns. The officers asked to see the guns, and defendant told them to "hang on a second" and that he would get them.. The officers said they should accompany him for their own safety. Defendant entered the house, followed by the officers. Defendant gave the officers no permission to enter the house.

Inside, Battles asked and received permission to check the house for the presence of other people. In an adjacent room, Battles saw a substantial amount of marijuana in plain view. The officers arrested defendant.

That evening Officer Hansen applied to a magistrate for a search warrant for Defendant's house to search for drugs. The application stated that the defendant had "invited" the officers into his house. The warrant was granted and defendant's house was searched. Additional quantities of marijuana were found. At a preliminary hearing, defendant moved to suppress the evidence acquired from the search on the grounds that the initial entry by Battles and Morrison was nonconsensual. Thus, the subsequently gathered evidence was "tainted" and should be suppressed.

Submitted by Eric D. Gazin

Emory University School of Law

Answer

Under the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule announced in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), where a police officer makes an "objectively reasonable" search in reliance on a warrant issued by a magistrate but unsupported by probable cause, the exclusionary rule will not be applied.

Although in this case the officers may not have technically obtained consent to enter the house from the defendant, once they were in the house the defendant consented to the officer's conducting a search of the house for safety purposes.  During a search for safety purposes the plain view exception to the warrant requirement applies and the officers need not obtain a warrant.  The defendant's subsequent consent to search the house probably remedied the original questionable entry.  Additionally, the defendant never asked the officers to leave the house or expressly stated that he did not consent to them leaving the house. However, if the initial entry is determined invalid then the evidence will be suppressed and the the good faith exception will not apply.