United States v. Kenneth Rush, 808 F.3d 1007

On May 23, 2012, tenant Marquita Wills told police she wanted Kenneth Rush removed from her apartment and signed a consent form authorizing a search. She did not report any threats or crimes against her.
Multiple officers entered the apartment with weapons drawn, found Rush asleep in the master bedroom, handcuffed him, then uncuffed and seated him in the living room.
Sergeant Winkler told Rush the officers had a search warrant when he knew no warrant existed; officers then searched and discovered crack cocaine and scales.
Rush admitted ownership of the drugs, gave information about a supplier, and later voluntarily went to the MDENT office to answer further questions; he was not arrested at the scene.
Rush moved to suppress the evidence from the warrantless search; the district court found a constitutional violation but denied suppression, reasoning officers’ lie was to protect Wills and that suppression would have minimal deterrent effect. Rush pled guilty reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling. The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded.

Issue	Rush's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether evidence obtained after officers lied about having a search warrant must be excluded under the exclusionary rule	Lie rendered any consent or waiver invalid; exclusion required because lie was deliberate and deterrence favors suppression	Officers acted in good faith to protect tenant; suppression unnecessary because deterrent value is minimal	Reversed: exclusionary rule applies; deliberate lie objectively unreasonable so evidence must be suppressed
Whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies	Good-faith exception inapplicable where officers intentionally lied and thus had no objectively reasonable belief their conduct was lawful	Officers’ subjective intent was benign (protecting tenant) and not aimed at violating rights, so suppression unwarranted	Rejected government: objective-reasonableness standard controls; deliberate falsehood cannot be objectively reasonable

Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968) (consent is invalid when obtained after officer falsely claims to possess a warrant)
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (co-occupant may object to a search; unlawfully foreclosing objection undermines that right)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (exclusionary rule balanced against deterrence; good-faith exception explained)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (isolated negligence attenuated from wrongdoing may not warrant suppression)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (good-faith exception applies when officers had objectively reasonable belief their conduct was lawful)
Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995) (exclusionary rule doesn’t deter court employee mistakes; good-faith reliance can defeat suppression)
United States v. Shaw, 707 F.3d 666 (6th Cir. 2013) (evidence excluded when officers entered/searched a house based on false pretenses)
United States v. Saafir, 754 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2014) (search premised on officer misstatement of authority is unreasonable)
United States v. Yengel, 711 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2013) (rejection of post-hoc justifications for searches inconsistent with officers’ conduct)