Officer bust in door to trailer (with defendant's consent through dispatch) after defendant says there are people in his home out to get him (bad meth trip). Officer handcuffs defendant for officer safety (shots had been fired by defendant at imaginary intruders) and asked defendant where drugs were located. Defendant tells officer drugs are in girlfriends drawer in a sock. Officer recovers drugs in exact location. Is that a valid seizure? Does officer have consent? Drugs are not in plain view. However, weapon fired and other weapons are in plain view.

Sounds like consent to me. Even with the handcuffs, those are reasonably explained by the previous shots being fired (if he's shooting at imaginary people, imagine what he'd do to an officer inside his home). Asking about where the drugs are located is investigative - after all, what were the imaginary people who were out to get him doing there? But it is not custodial interrogation, because D was not in custody. Police had both consent and PC to look in drawer because D told them where to look for drugs. Otherwise, they may have been limited to the areas in which a person could be found (if their concern was the imaginary person out to get D). Shoot, D probably wanted the police to search the drawer to make sure imaginary intruder hadn't stolen his stash.

When a homeowner calls in burglary or someone at the home, you also have exigent circumstances for the initial entry. But again, looking in a sock drawer would exceed the scope of the exigent circumstances in that instance. Although, there may be a reasonable argument that officers were concerned about other weapons in the house.

Issue of drugs being in gf's sock drawer - if she had exclusive control over that area, that could be a problem. But it doesn't sound like she does because (1) D knew exactly where they were, and (2) D was trippin' (so it sounds like he'd possibly visited that drawer not long before).

Assuming the entry was lawful due to exigent circumstances (reasonable belief that resident under attack from intruders) or consent, and with guns in plain view, it would be reasonable for safety purposes to handcuff the resident and frisk the house for intruders.

But asking about drugs is the stuff of a criminal investigation, unrelated to the purpose of the initial entry, and the defendant was not free to go at that point. I say he was in custody and t he confession statute applies. So I think it gets down to whether his statement is admissible anyway because it helped establish his guilt by leading to the finding of the secreted property. CCP 38.22, Sec. 3 (c).

He was not free to go, but whether it translates into an arrest is another question. A person can be detained (not free to leave) without being under arrest. It is not custodial interrogation unless he is under arrest.

Assuming for the moment that you're right and he was arrested, the warnings are the least of the concerns of the officer - there was no PC for the initial arrest (I am reading the facts as he was inside his home, not publicly intoxicated; if he were outside, that'd be different) and everything obtained after the arrest - even warned statements - could be subject to suppression.

I think it's important to separate the question asked "Is that a valid seizure?" from whether the defendant's statement is admissible.

Relying upon consent could be a challenge in light of the defendant's apparent delusional state. Intoxication isn't a problem. United States v. Lindsey, 158 Fed.Appx. 757, 759 (8th Cir.2005) (holding that the "'mere fact that one has taken drugs, or is intoxicated, or mentally agitated, does not render consent involuntary'") (quoting United States v. Rambo, 789 F.2d 1289, 1297 (8th Cir.1986)); United States v. Scheets, 188 F.3d 829, 839 (7th Cir.1999) (holding that "[t]he mere fact that an individual is intoxicated does not render consent involuntary"); United States v. Annis, 446 F.3d 852, 855 (8th Cir.2006) (pain from injuries combined with methamphetamine withdrawal did not make voluntary or knowing Miranda waiver impossible when defendant did not appear to be in pain or suffering from withdrawal, made no complaints and answered questions reasonably).

But if the police know that the suspect is delusional they probably cannot rely upon his consent. State v. Bocanegra, No. 28151-1-II, 2003 Wash. App. LEXIS 1877 (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2003) (where police had no reason to know that person who gave consent suffered from paranoid schizophrenia consent was valid); Brewster v. People of State of N.Y., Slip Copy, 2010 WL 92884 at * 7 (E.D.N.Y. January 06, 2010) (rejecting habeas applicant’s claim that consent was invalid; police had no reason to know of mental illness: there were no "signs in the record that petitioner was suffering from delusional symptoms or any other serious impairment that would indicate to a reasonable officer that the consent was not voluntary.");
U.S. v. Henderson, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 2370785 at *3 (W.D.Okla. July 29, 2009) (consent not voluntary in part because suspect was handcuffed and appeared to be suffering from paranoid delusions); State v. Sondergaard, 938 P.2d 351 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997)(police cannot rely upon consent to search from woman who is obviously hallucinating); see also Brian S. Love, Comment, Beyond Police Conduct: Analyzing Voluntary Consent to Warrantless Searches by the Mentally Ill and Disabled, 48 St. Louis U. L.J. 1469, 1474-87 (2004) (noting that courts have rarely been called upon to apply Schneckloth in cases where the individual consenting has a mental impairment and outlining the various approaches courts have taken).

The Texas "clear and convincing" burden makes proving consent harder in Texas.

Also, at least in the context of voluntariness under the Texas confession statute, the Court of Criminal Appeals has rejected limiting voluntariness concerns to matters known by the police. Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). If that is extended to the issue of consent to search, whether the police knew of the suspect's delusional state wouldn't be important.

Can you only rely on consent to search? Given the shots fired, firearms found, and the possibility of intruders--or others present, officer safety required handcuffing. Handcuffing is by no means always an arrest. When handcuffed, his condition became apparent (maybe combined with the statements he made about his condition), and provided PC for a search. If not, medical diagnosis might have required knowing what the nature of the substance was that he had consumed.

Judge had no problem with the entry or with the seizure of the guns. Defendant is not under arrest because of his handcuffing. Judge did suppress seizure of drugs. Can't say I blame him.