It is well settled under the Fourth Amendment that a search conducted without a warrant based upon probable cause is ‘per se unreasonable…subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.’  Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967).  One such exception to the search warrant requirement is a search conducted based on consent.   Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973).   When the suspect is not in custody and the “state attempts to justify the search based on his consent”, the State must show “that the consent was in fact freely given, and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied.”  Id. at 218.  The voluntariness of consent is based on the totality of the surrounding circumstances.  Id.  The Utah Supreme Court lists four factors in determining whether consent is voluntary based on the totality of circumstances.  Factors showing a lack of duress or coercion include: “1) the absence of a claim of authority to search by the officers; 2) the absence of an exhibition of force by the officers; 3) a mere request to search; 4) cooperation by the owner…and; 5) the absence of deception or trick on the part of the officer.”  State v. Whittenback, 621 P.2d 103, 106 (Utah 1980).

It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for agents to use a ruse for the intended purpose of gaining entry to Defendant’s residence. Although it is permissible for police to conceal their identity in obtaining an invitation into a suspect’s home, such as the case in undercover operations, the entry is lawful only for the “very purpose contemplated by the occupant.”  Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 211 (1966).  However, it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment if entry is gained through misrepresentation of the investigations true nature. United States v. Bosse, 898 F.2d 113, 115 (9^th Cir. 1990).  “When a government agent presents himself to a private individual, and seeks that individual’s cooperation based on his status as a government agent, the individual should be able to rely on the agent’s representations.”  Id.    As a result, when a suspect “is misinformed as to the purpose for which the agent seeks entry cannot be justified by consent.”  Id. (quoting United States v. Phillips, 497 F.2d 1131, 1135 n.4 (9^th Cir. 1974)).

Bottom line, police trickery which creates an emergent situation for the defendant whether it be a car crash, gas leak or other troubling event is an impermissible violation of the Fourth Amendment and any evidence obtained as a result of such trickery will be suppressed.