>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

>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. No it won't. I posted this above, but this is a good overview - http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/1911-lying-to-a-suspect-how-far-can-an-investigator-go http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/1911-lying-t... >[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."