WASHINGTON - March 25, 2008 - When an unsuspecting drug dealer opens the door to a police informant masquerading as a customer, is he also opening the door for the police to come in and conduct a search of his home without a warrant?

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to answer that question, which has divided the lower federal courts.

Several federal circuits have adopted what has come to be called a consent-once-removed exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. The theory is that a suspect who consents to the entry of someone who is really an agent of the police is also, albeit unknowingly, agreeing to let the police enter as well. The police do not need a warrant to enter and search a home if they have the permission of a person authorized to give it.

The new Supreme Court case is an appeal filed by five Utah police officers, members of the Central Utah Narcotics Task Force, who face paying damages to a man in whose home they conducted a search later found to be unconstitutional. The federal appeals court in Denver rejected their claim of immunity. The case presents complex questions of constitutional law, official immunity and the relationship between the two.