Consent to Search Unconstitutionally Coercive When Obtained by Deputy Who Was Also Lawyer
Eidson v. Owens, 2008 WL 376770 (10th Cir. 2/13/08)
After marijuana charges brought against Mr. and Mrs. Eidson in state court were dismissed after their suppression motion was granted, they brought a civil rights action against Deputy Sheriff Owens, who participated in the search and who was their former attorney. In April 2002, Owens drafted the Eidson's will. In August, 2004, in his role as a reserve-force deputy, Owens participated in a search of the Eidson's farm. In the civil rights action, the district court denied Owens' motion that he had qualified immunity in connection with the search.
The facts leading up to the search were that Mrs. Eidson ran into Owens' wife and told her about an altercation she just had with her son's girlfriend. Owens' wife told Owens, and he headed out to the Eidsons' farm in a marked car. He met Kim at a closed gate to the driveway, about 200 yards from the house and asked if she was "okay." For some reason, four more deputies arrived in short order. One told Owens that the Eidsons' 17-year-old son had given information about marijuana being grown on the farm. This was a lie; the deputy talking to Owens actually got the information from the mother and grandmother of the son's girlfriend. Owens confronted Mrs. Eidson with this information and she confessed that there were some plants. Mr. Eidson arrived and was also told that their son had turned them in. In response to Mr. Eidson's question about what would happen if they didn't consent to a search, Owens told them "if it takes three days..we'll hold you here for three days" to get a warrant. Owens also said the judge would go harder on them for their lack of cooperation. So, "consent" was obtained and marijuana plants, bags of marijuana and paraphernalia were found in the farm and house. When Mirandized, Mrs. Eidson said that Owens was her lawyer. Owens told the Eidsons on the way to jail that he couldn't be their lawyer.
The Tenth Circuit concluded that there was probable cause to obtain a search warrant because of the information from the girlfriend's mother and grandmother and Mrs. Eidson's admission. However, the consent was invalid: "A consent to search is hardly the product of a free and unconstrained choice when procured by an officer who had in the not-too-distant past provided legal advice and who currently advises that withholding consent will result in detention and a judicial penalty." Despite the conclusion that the search was unconstitutional, the Court concludes that it would not have been clear to a reasonable officer that what he was doing violated the Fourth Amendment. So, Deputy Owens was entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.
The Court also held that Owens was entitled to qualified immunity on the Fifth Amendment claims because there was no indication her confession was involuntary.
However, the Court dismissed Owens' appeal of the denial of summary judgment on the Eidsons' legal malpractice claim because it was independent of the constitutional claims and better suited to disposition in the district court.
After marijuana charges brought against Mr. and Mrs. Eidson in state court were dismissed after their suppression motion was granted, they brought a civil rights action against Deputy Sheriff Owens, who participated in the search and who was their former attorney. In April 2002, Owens drafted the Eidson's will. In August, 2004, in his role as a reserve-force deputy, Owens participated in a search of the Eidson's farm. In the civil rights action, the district court denied Owens' motion that he had qualified immunity in connection with the search.
The facts leading up to the search were that Mrs. Eidson ran into Owens' wife and told her about an altercation she just had with her son's girlfriend. Owens' wife told Owens, and he headed out to the Eidsons' farm in a marked car. He met Kim at a closed gate to the driveway, about 200 yards from the house and asked if she was "okay." For some reason, four more deputies arrived in short order. One told Owens that the Eidsons' 17-year-old son had given information about marijuana being grown on the farm. This was a lie; the deputy talking to Owens actually got the information from the mother and grandmother of the son's girlfriend. Owens confronted Mrs. Eidson with this information and she confessed that there were some plants. Mr. Eidson arrived and was also told that their son had turned them in. In response to Mr. Eidson's question about what would happen if they didn't consent to a search, Owens told them "if it takes three days..we'll hold you here for three days" to get a warrant. Owens also said the judge would go harder on them for their lack of cooperation. So, "consent" was obtained and marijuana plants, bags of marijuana and paraphernalia were found in the farm and house. When Mirandized, Mrs. Eidson said that Owens was her lawyer. Owens told the Eidsons on the way to jail that he couldn't be their lawyer.
The Tenth Circuit concluded that there was probable cause to obtain a search warrant because of the information from the girlfriend's mother and grandmother and Mrs. Eidson's admission. However, the consent was invalid: "A consent to search is hardly the product of a free and unconstrained choice when procured by an officer who had in the not-too-distant past provided legal advice and who currently advises that withholding consent will result in detention and a judicial penalty." Despite the conclusion that the search was unconstitutional, the Court concludes that it would not have been clear to a reasonable officer that what he was doing violated the Fourth Amendment. So, Deputy Owens was entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.
The Court also held that Owens was entitled to qualified immunity on the Fifth Amendment claims because there was no indication her confession was involuntary.
However, the Court dismissed Owens' appeal of the denial of summary judgment on the Eidsons' legal malpractice claim because it was independent of the constitutional claims and better suited to disposition in the district court.
posted by Anonymous at 12:51 PM
<< Home