Can you cite anything to support this? I find it hard to believe that a court would completely ignore the basis on which consent was given. For example:
"The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution require that a consent to a search not be coerced, by explicit or implicit means, by implied threat or covert force. For, no matter how subtly the coercion was applied, the resulting "consent" would be no more than a pretext for the unjustified police intrusion against which the Fourth Amendment is directed" [1]
...which seems to indicate that the same notion of "fruit of the poisonous" tree as regards evidence applies equally to consent to search.
[1] Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973)
I don't have the cite on me but there's a 1970 case in California where the cops knocked on the door, the occupant of the house told them to come in, they came in and arrested everybody (no warrant). Court found for the people.
Anyway I'm not even saying that the FBI will definitely prevail here. I am saying that the whole thing will hinge on the question of consent. Your rebuttal seems spurious because you cannot have been coerced by someone if you thought they were the cable repairman. That's incompatible with the rest of the defense.
I had a weird conversation with a cop last year - basically, they responded very late to a domestic disturbance, that being, one of the people staying in my spare room until they got their shit together decided to attack me. The other person called the cops while I calmed the first person down, which fortunately happened before the cops showed up.
I answer the door, and am asked if everything is okay, and so on. I probably look very shaken because I had to disarm someone not 5 minutes earlier, so they insist on coming in. What I told them is that they put me in a bind, because on one hand, I was told that it is customary in the US to refuse entry to law enforcement unless you specifically called them, on the other hand, I have taken a vow of hospitality, so they are welcome to a warm meal, but would they mind having it served on the porch?
They saw some Jehova's Witness literature on a table behind me and figured I was some religious crazy, said they're not allowed to accept food on duty but thanks anyway, and left.
All this because the person who tried to stab me is transgendered, and I didn't think spending any time in a jail would have been safe for her.
Sorry for the irrelevant story, I just had to let it out.
>I don't have the cite on me but there's a 1970 case in California where the cops knocked on the door, the occupant of the house told them to come in, they came in and arrested everybody (no warrant).
What does that have to do with anything? It isn't relevant here.
>I am saying that the whole thing will hinge on the question of consent.
>[In] Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 1969 the Supreme Court ruled that [the] use of trickery and deceit can be permissible (depending on the totality of circumstances) provided that it does not shock the conscience of the court or community.
It isn't about consent but if the FBI's trickery could/did "shock the conscience of the court or community."
"The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution require that a consent to a search not be coerced, by explicit or implicit means, by implied threat or covert force. For, no matter how subtly the coercion was applied, the resulting "consent" would be no more than a pretext for the unjustified police intrusion against which the Fourth Amendment is directed" [1]
...which seems to indicate that the same notion of "fruit of the poisonous" tree as regards evidence applies equally to consent to search.
[1] Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973)