State v. Brittingham, 294 P.3d 263

Public housing authority employee Hutson entered Brittingham’s apartment without a warrant to check for water damage after a sewer backup.
Hutson observed drugs and paraphernalia in plain view during the entry.
NNHA director Schlesener then entered, attempted to arouse occupants, and called 911; the Chief of Police arrived and observed drugs in plain view.
Brittingham consented to a broader search; Detective Torres conducted the search that recovered more items.
Brittingham challenged the suppression of evidence, arguing Hutson and Schlesener were government actors and the entry violated the Fourth Amendment and § 15, warrantless and unsupported by exceptions.
The district court denied suppression; the Court of Appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court granted review to address whether Hutson was a government actor for Fourth Amendment purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are Hutson and Schlesener government actors for Fourth Amendment purposes?	Brittingham argues they were government actors.	Brittingham relies on Smith to claim government-actor status; the state contends not all government employees are actors.	No; they are not government actors for Fourth Amendment purposes.
Does the exclusionary rule apply when a public housing employee uninvitedly enters a private dwelling?	Exclusion applies if entry was by government actors without a warrant.	Smith supports private-citizen status when not acting within employment scope or at government's instigation.	Exclusionary rule does not apply; evidence not suppressed.
What governing standard applies to suppression rulings on appeal?	Suggests suppression should be upheld if Fourth Amendment violated.	Standard is factual review for substantial evidence with de novo legal review.	Legal conclusions reviewed de novo; factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence.
Does Smith control whether public housing employees can be treated as government actors?	Smith expands government-actor status to any government employee.	Smith limits by requiring employment scope and objective connection with government actions.	Smith limits government-actor status; not all government employees are actors.

New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985) (scope of Fourth Amendment beyond schools; government action)
Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967) (Fourth Amendment applies to regulatory inspections by government entities)
Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (1978) (administrative inspections subject to Fourth Amendment restraints)
Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (1978) (activity-focused Fourth Amendment analysis in emergencies/arson context)
Smith v. State (State v. Smith), 243 Kan. 715 (1988) (government employee treated as private citizen when not acting within official duties)
Pleasant v. Lovell, 876 F.2d 787 (10th Cir. 1989) (two-step test for private citizen becoming government actor)