State v. Salah

An officer has implied consent to enter a home when the officer would have reasonably understood the occupant’s acts and gestures to amount to consent to enter.

Appellant appealed his judgment of conviction for harassment. In his first assignment of error, he argued that neither the officer-safety exception nor consent justified the warrantless entry into his home. For the last four, appellant argued, and the state conceded, that the imposition of four special conditions of probation were improper because they were not announced in open court and do not reasonably relate to his crime of conviction. The state conceded, and the court agreed, that the officer-safety exception to the warrant requirement did not apply, but the court held that implied consent existed, thus justifying the warrantless entry into the home. Here, the court reasoned that appellant’s wife, by standing inside the home, impliedly consented to the entry by cooperating with the officer. These acts and gestures would have led a reasonable officer to conclude that she had consent to enter. Further, appellant had not expressly denied consent. REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING, OTHERWISE AFFIRMED.