We use CIs quite a bit to bust narcotics, and often equip them with hidden cameras to make controlled buys. My current case involves a CI with camera inside Defendant's house.

Defense has filed a MTS, citing language in US v. Jones: "Where, as here, the Government obtains information by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area, such a search has undoubtedly occurred."

State's position will have to be that a CI with camera, in Defendant's home with his consent, is NOT a "search." Any thoughts on how to get around the broad language of US v. Jones?

A court should reject the complaint on the basis of consent for the entry.

Cases you might look at include:
Lewis v. U.S., 385 U.S. 206, 209, 87 S.Ct. 424, 17 L.Ed.2d 312 (1966) ("[I]n the detection of many types of crime, the Government is entitled to use decoys and to conceal the identity of its agents.").


United States v. Janis, 831 F.2d 773, 775-76 (8th Cir.1987);
U.S. v. Hankins, 195 Fed. Appx. 295, 302, 2006 WL 2787074 (6th Cir.) (Unpublished disposition) (“A person may still validly consent to a guest's entry, even if the guest lies about his or her identity or the reasons for the entry.")

Martin v. State, 67 S.W.3d 340, 343-44
(Tex.App.– Texarkana 2001, pet. ref'd).