Court’s ruling on search of apartment is challenged

Sunday, April 2, 2006 | 7:21 a.m.

Using evidence police took in a search of his apartment, prosecutors convicted Dion Casteel of sexually assaulting his live-in girlfriend's daughter and taking lewd pictures of her.

Metro Police, though, never obtained a warrant and never asked him if they could search his apartment.

The Nevada Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the search was legal because Casteel's girlfriend gave officers permission.

In a 3-0 decision a panel of the court found that "Casteel never expressly or impliedly protested the search or denied the mother's authority to consent to the search."

But the case may not be as clear as that, given a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on police searches and the fact that Casteel was never asked.

Police, according to testimony in the case, never asked Casteel if they could search. They told him they already had permission.

Allen Lichtenstein, the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada's attorney, said the reason Casteel didn't object is because police didn't start searching the apartment until after he left to talk with other detectives at their office.

Lichtenstein said Casteel's consent was circumvented by nothing more than a "ruse."

"The state Supreme Court's position is troubling because the police never asked him for consent, but instead took him away to conduct an interview so they could search the apartment," Lichtenstein said.

Deputy District Attorney Ross Miller, who prosecuted Casteel, said police "acted absolutely appropriately."

"Before conducting the search, they got the consent and keys from the mother and then told the defendant they had the consent to search the apartment," he said.

When the victim told her mother what Casteel was doing, her mother contacted the police and gave officers the keys to the apartment and permission to search.

Police entered after getting no response at the door. Inside they found Casteel, who had been sleeping, and he agreed to accompany detectives to their office to be interviewed.

Officers found incriminating evidence, including the victim's underwear, in Casteel's gym bag. When the officers were unable to locate photographs described by the victim, one of the officers drove to the office where Casteel was being questioned and asked where they could be found.

Casteel told the officer where they were, but instead of asking his permission to continue searching, the officer called the victim's mother.

Deputy Public Defender Sharon Dickenson is preparing a petition to ask the court to rehear the case and is looking at last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with lower courts that ruled police were required to obtain the husbands consent.

Miller said the difference in this case is that Casteel "didnt vocally object to the officers search and instead acquiesced to the search."

Lichtenstein, however, said there "is no reason the police couldnt have obtained a search warrant."

Matt Pordum can be reached at 474-7406.