Colorado Supreme Court People v. Arapu 11SA326

Decision here.

   ICE was investigating Arapu for being illegally present in the country, and did a knock & talk at his house.  Like ICE does, they brought the local PD to keep them safe.

   Arapu answered the door, and refused to allow the ICE agents into the apartment.  They talked through the door, and when the agent asked Arapu for his papers Arapu said that another woman in the apartment could go get them.  The ICE agent (apparently having some pretty screwed up ideas about the scope of consent) told Arapu that either the woman would have to come out of the apartment or they would come in.  You know, for officer safety reasons.  In response to this, Arapu invited Detective Chi and only Detective Chi into the apartment.  Detective Chi was one of the local PD who ICE had brought along, and apparently he had treated Arapu fairly during a previous investigation.

   At this point, I would have walked away.  I'm not in the habit of going into places alone, and when all I've got is consent I'm also not in the habit of forcing issues.  But Detective Chi went into the apartment to keep an eye on the woman.  While inside, Arapu let him know that there was a toy gun in the apartment (Chi picked up the gun and confirmed that it was a toy).  After about 20 minutes of talking, one of the ICE agents arrested Arapu.  The woman inside the apartment said she had to leave for work, and Chi asked for her identifying info before she left.  Since she didn't have ID, one of the ICE agents entered the apartment to question her (the court case doesn't offer a shred of clue what legal justification the ICE agent had for coming in).  One of the other local officers entered as well (for some reason), and noticed another gun.

   While Arapu was being arrested, he asked the woman to lock up the apartment.  Chi offered to do that, and Arapu agreed (ICE eventually arrested the woman, anyway).  While Chi was getting Arapu's keys, he noticed a bag of (suspected) cocaine.  ICE left with their prisoners, and the local PD left the apartment.  Chi locked up, and he left the gun and cocaine where they were.  Based on the observations of the gun and cocaine, Chi obtained a search warrant, returned to the apartment, and seized these items (along with paraphernalia, weed, and some prescription pills).

   At his trial, Arapu moved to suppress everything based on Chi's allegedly illegal presence inside his apartment.  The trial court held that Chi had been given consent to enter the apartment to watch the woman who was with Arapu, but that he had exceeded the scope of this consent when he asked the woman for her ID while they were still in the apartment, and also when he had remained inside the apartment until the ICE agents had left.  Accordingly, all the evidence was suppressed and the people filed an interlocutory appeal.

   The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Arapu had allowed Chi into the apartment to watch this woman, and that this consent naturally included asking for her ID.  The court also noted that Arapu had allowed Chi to remain in the apartment to lock it up, and that it wouldn't make much sense to expect Chi to do that before the feds left.  On the other hand, the feds and the other local officers did not have permission to enter, so the observations of the gun inside the apartment were the result of an illegal search and inadmissible.  Any mention of the gun had to be redacted from Chi's search warrant affidavit.

   Even after redacting any mention of the gun, the affidavit established PC.  Since the gun would have been found during a search for drugs, the court ruled that the gun was still admissible even though it had initially been illegally discovered.  The case has been sent back to the trial court, and the suppression of the evidence has been reversed.

   The trial court had also found fault with Chi for not interfering with the ICE agents' illegal entry into the apartment.  As far as that goes, the supreme court said "We are aware of no authority, and none has been brought to our attention, that would impose an obligation upon, or give authority to, a municipal law enforcement officer to direct how a federal investigation should be conducted."  If you've ever been called to assist the feds, that probably comes as a relief.