Colorado Court of Appeals People v. Nelson 08CA0775

Decision here. 

   Police, acting on information from a reliable informant, were investigating drug trafficking from an apartment.  A plainclothes officer knocked on the door and identified himself as "maintenance" while the uniformed officer waited out of sight.  When Nelson opened the door, the uniformed officer made his appearance and noticed a pot pipe in plain view.  He also saw a second occupant of the apartment run to the back, so he made entry and chased the second occupant out the back door, apprehended him, and brought him back to the apartment (while he was doing this, the plainclothes officer took Nelson to the ground to stop him from interfering).  The second occupant was found in possession of meth, and a subsequent search of the apartment (with Nelson's girlfriend's consent) uncovered guns and more drugs.  Then the police got a search warrant (a little late in the game, but whatever), and searched again.  The district court held all the evidence admissible, Nelson was convicted, and he appealed.

   The court of appeals made the following rulings:

   The police officers' use of a ruse to convince Nelson to open the door was valid, because they only used the ruse to convince him to open the door (after which, they were planning on carrying on the contact as a consensual knock-and-talk.  This makes no sense to me).  There's some discussion in the decision of when the police may or may not use deception to gain entry.  It basically boils down to a question of whether or not the deception is coercive or otherwise invalidates consent.  The court also draws a distinction between ruses used to gain entry to a place, and ruses used to cause an occupant to open a door.

   The pot pipe in plain view was probable cause, and Nelson's buddy running to the back of the apartment was exigency, because drug traffickers usually have weapons (that seems really weak to me.  I wouldn't want to try it, but it apparently worked in this particular case).

   The search of the apartment with Nelson's girlfriend's consent was not valid as to Nelson, and so the guns and drugs found during that search can't be used against him.... (it's about to get confusing)

   ...unless they would have been found anyway when the police searched the apartment with a warrant.  The exclusionary rule doesn't apply in cases where illegally obtained evidence would have been found later through legal means (the Inevitable Discovery doctrine) or when it was also found through legal means (the Independent Source doctrine).  Obviously, the police can't use the suppressed guns and drugs to obtain the warrant that leads to their admission, but the court held that there was enough evidence for them to have obtained a warrant before they found all that.  The question remaining is whether or not the police would have applied for a search warrant if they hadn't already found the guns and drugs.  The appellate court ruled that there was insufficient evidence on the record to decide this point, and remanded the case back to the district court for a hearing on this issue.  Depending on how the district court decides, Nelson will either remain convicted or be entitled to a new trial.