State v. Budd: A Man’s Home is his Castle
The Washington State Court of Appeals Division III recently handed down an opinion in State v Budd which has to do with the warnings a police officer gives to a resident of a home before entering that home for the purpose of it being searched. Ferrier warnings, as they are called (named after a 1998 Washington State Supreme Court case), inform someone, whose home is the subject of a warrant-less search/seizure, that they have rights pertaining to this search. Specifically: they are not obligated consent to a search of their home, consent may be revoked at any point in time and the officers asked to leave, and that the homeowner must be fully informed of these rights before officers enter their home.
In Budd, an anonymous tipster let police know that Michael Allen Budd likely possessed child pornography, so police went to his residence to investigate. Upon arrival, the officers, who did not have a search warrant, were greeted by Mr. Budd’s girlfriend who told them that he was at work, so they waited outside. When Budd finally arrived home the officers informed him of their suspicions and he actually admitted to having child pornography on his computer. At this point, Detective Kim Holmes, who was the lead investigator on this case, told Mr. Budd that she could easily obtain a search warrant for his computer if he were unwilling to consent to a search of it then and there. Det. Holmes testified at the suppression hearing that she had basically given Mr. Budd a cursory Ferrier warning prior to entering his home but did not inform him of the fact that he may stop the search at any time. Mr. Budd only became fully warned of his rights pursuant to Ferrier once he and the officers sat down at his kitchen table inside. At this point Mr. Budd decided to sign a form consenting to the search and officers confiscated his computer, which turned out to contain child pornography. This case went to trial and Mr. Budd was found guilty of possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
According to the Court of Appeals, had the trial court found that Mr. Budd was fully informed of his Ferrier rights prior to the officers’ entry into his home, then his conviction would have been affirmed. But because, by Detective Holmes’ own admission, Mr. Budd was not fully informed of his rights pertaining to that search until after officers had entered his home, the Court of Appeals found that Mr. Budd’s due process rights were violated and his charge was dismissed.
Perhaps most notably, the Court’s opinion opened with a reminder of recent history:
Talmadge: Do you remember studying in law school the principle that no matter how humble a man’s cottage is, that even the king of England cannot enter without his consent?
Ehrlichman: I am afraid that has been considerably eroded over the years, has it not?
Talmadge: Down in my country, we still think it is a pretty legitimate principle of law.
Exchange between Georgia’s United States Senator Herman Talmadge and former White House Counsel John Ehrlichman, United States Senate Watergate Committee hearings, July 25, 1973.
