[ back ]
Drug Searches: Yosef and Sequoia Illegally Convicted? (Part II)
My prior column summarized how Yosef was convicted of drug possession in spite of the fact he was illegally detained and searched. The Supreme Court, in a 3-2 decision, determined that Yosef’s sister, Sequoia, voluntarily allowed the police to search their apartment. Since he lived there and there were drugs, he could be convicted of unlawful possession. Sequoia pled guilty to drug possession on the condition she could appeal to the Supreme Court to determine if the search of her apartment was constitutional. Today’s issue is whether the police lawfully entered Yosef’s and Sequoia’s apartment.
After illegally searching Yosef in the street and finding marijuana, the police went to the apartment and asked Sequoia if they could come in to verify Yosef’s identification. She agreed. Once she let them in to “talk,” an officer saw a roach, and asked if he could search for marijuana. The officer told her, he could get a warrant if she did not consent, but he would have to “seize” the apartment while waiting for the warrant which could take several hours. Sequoia did not want her 8 year-old son to see the police searching his home, and have to go somewhere else, so she signed a consent and waiver to search. Drugs were found.
The State claimed Sequoia voluntarily consented to the search. Police can’t just knock on your door and ask to look around. Sequoia argued they had no business being at her door, because the reason they were there was because of the marijuana illegally seized from Yosef. She also claimed she was intimidated into giving consent. The police led her to believe that failure to give consent would be futile and a search would occur whether she consented or not. In addition she didn’t want her son traumatized while the apartment was “seized.”
The Court majority said the police didn’t come to her door as a result of the illegal search of Yosef, but because they knew taxis frequently stopped there, and drug dealers used taxis to escape detection. Further they needed to check Yosef’s ID. They also concluded the police did not tell Sequoia that a refusal to search would be futile.
Justices Johnson and Skoglund didn’t buy it. Many prior cases decided that to justify consent search after an illegal detention, the State had a heavy burden to establish there was no connection between the two events. In their view, the State had not proved that the illegal search was not a cause of the search of the apartment, or enough intimidation to wring consent from Sequoia. They would vacate both convictions.
Doesn’t it defy belief that an officer can ignore facts he obtained illegally to justify this search? State v. Yosef and Sequoia Pitts 2009 VT 51
[ back ]
