united-states constitutional-law us-constitution search-and-seizure
How is a plain-clothes officer entering your house not an unreasonable search?
<p>In <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/10/whats-an-occasion-scope-of-armed-career-criminal-act-depends-on-the-answer/" rel="noreferrer">Wooden v United States</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Wooden was sitting at home one evening when he heard a knock at his door. He answered to find an unknown man, who asked to speak with Wooden’s wife. Wooden invited the stranger inside while he went to get her. The stranger just happened to be a plain-clothes officer who knew of Wooden’s felony convictions. Because people with felony convictions are generally prohibited from possessing firearms, when the officer stepped inside and saw a gun, he arrested Wooden.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>How is a plain-clothes officer entering your house without identifying himself as an officer not an unreasonable search?</p>

<p>Wooden made two arguments to suppress the evidence, first that he had not consented to the officer entering his house (the officer and the court disagreed) and the second that even if the officer's entry had been legitimate, the evidence <a href="https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-wooden-20" rel="noreferrer">wasn't legitimate because of the Fourth Amendment</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Much of Wooden’s challenge turns on the fact that Mason was neither in uniform nor identified himself as a police officer. Both are true. But generally speaking, neither amounts to improper deception in the Fourth Amendment context. United States v. Baldwin , <a href="https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-baldwin-2#p252" rel="noreferrer">621 F.2d 251, 252–53</a> (6th Cir. 1980) (citing Lewis v. United States , <a href="https://casetext.com/case/lewis-v-united-states-8#p211" rel="noreferrer">385 U.S. 206, 211</a>, <a href="https://casetext.com/case/lewis-v-united-states-8" rel="noreferrer">87 S.Ct. 424</a>, <a href="https://casetext.com/case/lewis-v-united-states-8" rel="noreferrer">17 L.Ed.2d 312</a> (1966) ). Nor did Mason take any affirmative steps to attempt to deceive Wooden regarding his identity. Mason was silent as to his official position; he did not hold himself out to be anything he was not. He merely asked to speak to Harris and then asked if he could come inside, to get out of the cold.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Probably relevant also is that the officer didn't &quot;search&quot; for the rifle that prompted the arrest. Wooden <em>picked it up in plain sight</em>, the search of Wooden's person that revealed the second firearm was done as the officer arrested him for the rifle and the subsequent search of the house was carried out with the consent of the other resident Janet Harris.</p>

<p>If a plain-clothes officer entered your house <em>without your permission or a warrant</em>, then it would indeed run afoul of the 4th Amendment (and the same is true for a uniformed officer.) But essentially no search is considered 'unreasonable' if you consent to it without coercion/duress. Similarly, courts have consistently held that anything seen by an officer &quot;in plain view&quot; from a place where the officer was lawfully present is fair game for evidence. This is known as the &quot;<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine" rel="noreferrer">Plain View Doctrine</a>&quot; and its requirements were set out by the Supreme Court in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_v._California" rel="noreferrer">Horton v. California, 1990</a>.</p>
<p>So, if the officer was invited into the house (which the officer and court say was the case) and happened to see something that he knew to be illegal in plain sight (as far as I know, all parties agree that this was the case,) then seizing it as evidence and conducting an arrest is not a violation of the 4th Amendment.</p>

<p>I am not a lawyer. Impartial observations follow.</p>
<p>It seems that consent is not strictly required to be &quot;informed&quot; consent.
An LEO in plain clothes has no duty of disclosure in these circumstances.
The &quot;plain sight&quot; rule stands even if plain sight would not have been possible from without. There is no privileged confidentiality here.</p>
<p>The onus is upon the convicted felon to assume anyone entering is law enforcement and challenge them before inviting them in, that and keeping things out of sight, or not &quot;possessing those things&quot;.</p>
