Suppression Motion Properly Denied for Defendant Who Asked Cops to Search Home for Exculpatory Evidence

US v Pikyavit, No. 07-4113, 2008 WL 2265154 (Tenth Cir. June 4, 2008) (published): This defendant, in attempting to get out of one jam, got himself into a worse one. Mr. Pikyavit was arrested and jailed, along with four other men, after there was a fight outside his home. While he was in jail, his brother told him that there was evidence in the house that proved Mr. Pikyavit was not the aggressor in the fight. He asked two officers to go to his house to view this exculpatory evidence. He also said the house would be unlocked. The officers went over to the house, and had to slip the lock using a plastic card. While looking for the evidence Mr. Pikyavit claimed was there, they saw ammunition in plain view. They then went and got a search warrant, and a gun and more ammo were found. Based on this evidence, Mr. Pikyavit was convicted of being a felon in possession.

He appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the search exceeded the scope of his consent. The COA rejected his argument that he didn't consent to entry if the door was locked, concluding that the officers could have reasonably concluded they could enter even if the doors were locked so long as entry could be done without damaging the property because Pikyavit didn't expressly limit his consent, he initiated the encounter with the police, and he wanted the search to occur quickly because he hoped the officers would find evidence to exonerate him in connection with the fight. Defendant additionally argued his consent did not include the rooms off the main hallway, but only the living room and kitchen. However, there was evidence that Pikyavit asked the officers to search the entire house because exculpatory evidence could be anywhere.