Top Law Schools

OK, this has been bugging me. My exam had a scenario in which officers received an anonymous tip about drugs being sold from a house. They did no investigation to corroborate. They went the next day at 9:30 at night to the house. There were 5 officers in plain clothes, but with raid vests on. They did not get a warrant, but instead went to go knock on the door and obtain consent to search the house. The lead officer beats on the door for like 2 or 3 minutes, pounding hard and yelling police. Finally the door is opened by a little 23-year-old girl.


Is there a case about this? Something that says you can't do that? I search my notes and book and can't find anything, but it's bothering me...it feels like there was something there.

They didn't affirmatively misrepresent a warrant. I analyzed it under attempting to obtain consent, and 5 cops in half-raid gear at 9:30 at night pounding on the door would probably appear overly coercive to young, small woman.

Was I right or did I completely miss an on-point case?

There is no major case directly on point that I'm aware of.

The argument would be the consent was involuntary because of intimidation (time of day; pounding on the door; cops outnumbering the girl). That being said, on the facts as you described them, that claim would still probably lose.

Unless I too am missing something major, I think you got it.

That makes me feel better. I couldn't tell if all the facts were there because they were pulled from a case, or to establish intimidation.

Isn't there a case where the cops come late at night and convince the kid (in his underwear) to "voluntarily" come down to the station? His confession is subsequently suppressed due to lack of voluntariness.

I don't know...maybe it was a state case.

jkay wrote:Isn't there a case where the cops come late at night and convince the kid (in his underwear) to "voluntarily" come down to the station? His confession is subsequently suppressed due to lack of voluntariness.

I don't know...maybe it was a state case.

There could be, but that wouldn't apply. If she pulls facts from a case, she uses the whole fact pattern.

I think it was to argue the exclusionary rule.