Full opinion text
MOORE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which COLE, J., joined. BATCHELDER, J. (pp. 427-45), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part and dissenting from the judgment. OPINION KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. This case poses a series of intriguing questions: first, to enter a residence to execute an arrest warrant, must a police officer have probable cause or only “reason to believe” that the suspect is inside the residence, and did the officers’ knowledge in this case satisfy either standard? Second, does an apartment manager become an agent of the government when officers request that the manager enter an apartment to verify the presence of a suspect? Because we hold that the officers’ knowledge was insufficient under either standard and that the apartment manager was acting as an agent of the government in this case, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of Defendant-Appellant Ma-lik D. Hardin’s (“Hardin”) motion to suppress, VACATE Hardin’s conviction, and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. BACKGROUND A. Facts Hardin appeals his conviction following a two-day jury trial in June 2006. The jury convicted Hardin of possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B), possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). For the most part, the facts in this case are not significantly disputed. On March 28, 2005, Hardin was released from prison and put on federal supervised release. In June 2005, a federal warrant for Hardin’s arrest issued following a petition to revoke his supervised release. Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) at 125-26 (Gov’t Resp. to Def.’s Sent. Mem. at 2). On August 29, 2005, Officer Ed Kingsbury (“Kingsbury”), an investigator with the Knoxville Police Department, received a tip from a confidential informant (“Cl”) that Hardin might be staying with a girlfriend at the Applewood Apartment complex. J.A. at 84 (Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation Re: Mot. to Suppress (“Mot. to Suppress R & R”) at 3). The Cl also described the vehicle that he believed Hardin to be driving, but the Cl could not identify which particular apartment he believed Hardin to be staying in, only its approximate area in the building. Id.) see also J.A. at 160-63 (Hr’g Tr. at 18-21). Along with Officer Jason Tarwater (“Tarwater”), Kingsbury went to the apartment building, where the officers spotted what they believed to be the described vehicle near the apartment unit, number 48, that they believed the Cl had described. J.A. at 84 (Mot. to Suppress R & R at 3), 149-50 (Hr’g Tr. at 7-8). The officers talked with the apartment manager, whom the government never produced and identified only as “Craig,” who informed them that Hardin had not leased any apartment and that the manager had not seen him on the property. J.A. at 84-85 (Mot. to Suppress R & R at 3^4), 168 (Hr’g Tr. at 26). The apartment manager told them that a woman, Germaine Reynolds (“Reynolds”), had leased Apartment 48. J.A. at 85 (Mot. to Suppress R & R at 4). The government and Hardin stipulated that Hardin was an overnight guest of Reynolds, the lessee, and that “standing was not an issue.” J.A. at 58 (Mot. to Reveal Identity Mem. & Order at 2 n. 1). The officers advised the manager of Hardin’s criminal history, namely a shootout with police officers following an armed-robbery incident in the mid-1990s, a conviction for which Hardin served ten years in prison. J.A. at 169 (Hr’g Tr. at 27). Kingsbury testified that the apartment manager was shocked and worried about Hardin’s potential presence in the apartment complex, and Kingsbury told the manager that “we need to see if he is there” and that “[w]e asked him to go ahead and under a ruse check to see if a water leak was in the apartment to see if he was there.” J.A. at 151 (Hr’g Tr. at 9) (emphasis added). Kingsbury unequivocally stated that “[w]ithout a doubt” the ruse “was my idea.” J.A. at 171-72. (Hr’g Tr. at 29-30). At trial, Kingsbury testified that “[w]e sent the manager of the apartment to see if [Hardin] was there.” J.A. at 267 (Trial Tr. at 33) (emphasis added). The officers watched on CCTV as the manager walked to Apartment 48 and entered it. J.A. at 172-73 (Hr’g Tr. at 30-31). Hardin testified that the manager simply entered the apartment, using a key, and called out “Maintenance.” J.A. at 221-22 (Hr’g Tr. at 79-80). At that time, Hardin was in the back bedroom, talking on a cell phone to Reynolds. Id. Hardin asked her what to do, and she told him to ask what they wanted. J.A. at 222 (Hr’g Tr. at 80). Hardin stated that the manager “said there is a water leak upstairs in the upstairs apartment. Is it all right if I come in and check your bathroom?” and that he related this information to Reynolds. Id. In response, she stated “yes, I guess,” and Hardin told the manager he could look at the bathroom. Id. After checking the bathroom, the manager stood in the hallway outside the bedroom, looked in, and asked Hardin if he had heard any water running. J.A. at 223 (Hr’g Tr. at 81). The apartment manager returned to the officers and told them that “the guy you are looking for is back in the back bedroom on the right laying on the bed talking on the cell phone.” J.A. at 173 (Hr’g Tr. at 31). Kingsbury testified that he felt they had probable cause at that point. J.A. at 174 (Hr’g Tr. at 32). Earlier in the hearing Kingsbury stated his belief that the Cl’s information was not sufficient to establish probable cause alone. J.A. at 163-64 (Hr’g Tr. at 21-22); see also J.A. at 46-47 (stating that the officers “based their decision that they had probable cause to believe [Hardin] was inside [ ] upon the apartment manager’s verification”) (Gov’t Resp. to Def.’s Mot. to Reveal Identity of Informant at 1-2). After the apartment manager verified Hardin’s presence in Apartment 48, Kings-bury and Tarwater called for two more officers to join them in entering the apartment to arrest Hardin, whom they believed to be dangerous based on his prior conviction. The officers entered abruptly, screaming “police” and “get down on the ground.” J.A. at 89 (Mot. to Suppress R & R at 8). They found Hardin sitting on a couch in the front room, and Kingsbury stated that Hardin cooperated in moving to the floor and allowing himself to be handcuffed. Id. Kingsbury testified that, as the other officers handcuffed Hardin, he searched the couch on which Hardin had been sitting and found a firearm underneath a cushion. Id. Another officer, Jared Turner, conducted a sweep of the apartment’s other rooms, and when he entered the bedroom, “he saw a bed with a bedskirt” and “[i]t appeared to him as though someone might be under the bed, because of the way an area of the sham poked out.” J.A. at 94 (Mot. to Suppress R & R at 13). Upon investigation, Turner discovered that the protrusion was a shoe box that contained two more firearms. Id. In addition to the three firearms, the officers recovered crack cocaine, marijuana, and approximately $2,000 in cash from Hardin’s pockets. J.A. at 92 (Mot. to Suppress R & R at 11). B. Procedural History On September 7, 2005, a Grand Jury indicted Hardin on three counts, J.A. at 12-13 (Indictment), and on January 23, 2006, Hardin filed a motion to suppress the physical evidence recovered from the apartment, J.A. at 23-29. Although the officers had a warrant for his arrest, Hardin contended that the officers lacked probable cause to believe that he was present in the apartment where he was staying as a guest. The government argued that probable cause existed because the apartment manager, at the officers’ request, entered the apartment and verified Hardin’s presence. J.A. at 30-36 (Gov’t Resp. to Mot. to Suppress). On February 17, 2006, Hardin filed a motion to reveal the identity of the Cl. J.A. at 40-45. The government filed a response to Hardin’s motion to reveal the identity of the Cl in which it argued that the Cl’s identity was “irrelevant” because probable cause to enter the apartment was “based upon the apartment manager’s verification that the defendant was inside.” J.A. at 46-47 (Gov’t Resp. to Def.’s Mot. to Reveal Identity of Informant at 1-2). On March 1, 2006, a magistrate judge heard oral argument on Hardin’s motion to reveal the identity of the Cl. During the hearing, at which no evidence was presented, the magistrate judge questioned Hardin’s argument that the apartment manager was acting as an agent or instrument of the government when he entered Apartment 48 to determine whether Hardin was present. J.A. at 132-33 (Mot. to Reveal Identity Hr’g Tr. at 4-5). On March 9, 2006, the magistrate judge issued a Memorandum and Order denying Hardin’s motion to reveal the Cl’s identity. The magistrate judge concluded that the apartment manager was not acting as an agent or instrument of the government because the magistrate judge held that Tennessee negligence law imposes upon apartment managers “a legal duty to all residents of the apartment community to exercise reasonable care in preventing harm to tenants resulting from third-party crimes on the premises.” J.A. at 65 (Mot. to Reveal Identity Mem. & Order at 9) (citing Tedder v. Raskin, 728 S.W.2d 343, 347-48 (Tenn.Ct.App.1987)). On March 17, 2006, the magistrate judge held a hearing on Hardin’s motion to suppress the physical evidence. On March 29, 2006, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation denying Hardin’s motion to suppress. After noting Hardin’s argument that the apartment manager was acting as an agent of the government, the magistrate judge observed that he had already resolved this issue against Hardin following the earlier, non-evidentiary hearing. J.A. at 96 & n. 1 (Mot. to Suppress R & R at 15). On May 3, 2006, the district court issued a Memorandum and Order overruling Hardin’s objections to the magistrate judge’s order denying Hardin’s motion to reveal the identity of the CL The district court noted Hardin’s objection to the magistrate judge’s ruling, in the absence of testimony, that the apartment manager was not acting as an agent of the government, but the court agreed with the magistrate judge that the apartment manager, “upon learning from law enforcement that the defendant may be in one of the apartments, had an independent duty to investigate further and confirm whether, in fact, [Hardin] was in the apartment.” J.A. at 112-13 (Mem. & Order at 2-3). On May 25, 2006, the district court issued a Memorandum and Order overruling Hardin’s objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and denied Hardin’s motion to suppress. The district court stated that “the Court again agrees [with the magistrate judge] that the apartment manager had an independent business duty to enter the apartment and confirm whether the defendant was in the apartment.” J.A. at 115 (Mem. & Order at 2). After a two-day jury trial in June 2006, Hardin was convicted of all counts. On September 26, 2006, the district court sentenced Hardin to 360 months in prison and eight years of supervised release and imposed a $300 Special Assessment. Hardin timely filed a notice of appeal. II. ANALYSIS A. Whether Probable Cause or Reason to Believe is the Correct Standard Governing When Officers May Enter a Residence to Execute an Arrest Warrant The first question presented by this case concerns the proper standard for evaluating the quantum of proof required for police officers to enter a residence to execute an arrest warrant. In Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), the Supreme Court stated that “an arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within.” Id. at 603, 100 S.Ct. 1371 (emphasis added). Earlier in the opinion, the Court noted that the case involved no contention that “the police lacked probable cause to believe that the suspect was at home when they entered.” Id. at 583, 100 S.Ct. 1371 (emphasis added). In dissent, Justice White stated his understanding that “under today’s decision, the officers apparently need an extra increment of probable cause when executing the arrest warrant, namely, grounds to believe that the suspect is within the dwelling.” Id. at 616 n. 13, 100 S.Ct. 1371 (White, J., dissenting) (emphasis added). Given that the officers did not have an arrest warrant in Payton, the Supreme Court did not elaborate on the quantum of proof necessary for officers to enter a residence to execute an arrest warrant, as the Court simply reversed the judgment against the defendant in the case after noting the absence of an arrest warrant. Id. at 603,100 S.Ct. 1371. The district court analyzed Hardin’s motion to suppress using a probable-cause standard, but on appeal the government argued in its brief that an intervening decision from our court, United States v. Pruitt, 458 F.3d 477 (6th Cir.2006), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 1814, 167 L.Ed.2d 325 (2007), controls this case and commands a different standard. In particular, the two-judge majority in Pruitt stated that “a lesser reasonable belief standard, and not probable cause, is sufficient to allow officers to enter a residence to enforce an arrest warrant.” Id. at 482. In response to the government’s argument, Hardin contended in his Reply Brief that the Pruitt panel had overlooked our prior decision in United States v. Jones, 641 F.2d 425 (6th Cir.1981). Reply Br. at 3-4. In Jones, observing that “[i]t is ... fundamental that government officials cannot invade the privacy of one’s home without probable cause for the entry,” we summarized Payton as holding that “an arrest warrant can authorize entry into a dwelling only where the officials executing the warrant have reasonable or probable cause to believe the person named in the warrant is within.” Id. at 428 (emphases added). At first glance, Jones and Pruitt appear in conflict on this issue, in which case our circuit’s rule that “[a] panel of this Court cannot overrule the decision of another panel,” Salmi v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 774 F.2d 685, 689 (6th Cir.1985), would mean that our prior holding in Jones governs this case, notwithstanding the later view expressed by the majority in Pruitt. Indeed, at oral argument the government conceded that Jones, as the earlier case in our circuit, was binding and had settled this issue. Upon more careful review, however, we conclude that Jones does not control this case because Jones involved a distinct factual scenario and because the language in our Jones opinion is dicta. Applying the same careful review to our opinion in Pruitt, we conclude that Pruitt does not control this case either because the language in Pruitt purporting to adopt a “lesser reasonable belief standard” was not necessary to the determination of the issue on appeal and is therefore dicta. See United States v. Swanson, 341 F.3d 524, 530 (6th Cir.2003) (“[T]his holding might be considered dicta in that it was not necessary to the determination of the issue on appeal.”). We address Jones first and then Pruitt. 1. Jones Does Not Control this Case In Jones, we considered the admissibility of evidence against a person not named in an arrest warrant; the arrest warrant was for the defendant’s brother. Jones, 641 F.2d at 426-27. In Payton, in contrast, the officers were seeking to and did arrest Payton. The Court’s statement, therefore, that “an arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within” pertained to the Fourth Amendment rights of a person named in arrest warrant. Payton, 445, U.S. at 603, 100 S.Ct. 1371. Indeed, in Payton the Court specifically observed that its opinion did not address “the authority of the police, without either a search warrant or arrest warrant, to enter a third party’s home to arrest a suspect.” Id. at 583, 100 S.Ct. 1371. Although our opinion in Jones cited Payton and summarized Payton’s holding — supplying the language in Jones that Hardin relies upon as establishing that Payton’s “reason to believe” standard is equivalent to a probable-cause standard— Jones clearly involved a different factual situation than Payton. We noted as much in Jones, observing that Payton did not address the requirements when the “entry is to the premises of a third person” who then challenges the evidence seized in the search. Jones, 641 F.2d at 428 n. 3. Citing our decision in United States v. McKinney, 379 F.2d 259 (6th Cir.1967), we stated that “an arrest warrant and probable cause is sufficient” in such circumstances. Jones, 641 F.2d at 428 n. 3. Shortly after our decision in Jones, however, the Supreme Court addressed this exact question in Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 101 S.Ct. 1642, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981), and held that more was required to protect persons not named in an arrest warrant when officers seize evidence during their intrusion into a residence at which the persons enjoyed a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court in Steagald explained that “the narrow issue before us is whether an arrest warrant — as opposed to a search warrant — is adequate to protect the Fourth Amendment interests of persons not named in the warrant, when their homes are searched without their consent and in the absence of exigent circumstances.” Steagald, 451 U.S. at 212, 101 S.Ct. 1642 (emphasis added). The Court held that “a search warrant must be obtained absent exigent circumstances or consent” for evidence to be admissible against the person not named in the warrant. Id. at 205-06, 101 S.Ct. 1642. The Court noted that the issue involved a conflict among the circuits and specifically cited our decision in McKinney as one “adopting the contrary view that a search warrant is not required.” Id. at 207 n. 3, 101 S.Ct. 1642. The Court’s opinion in Steagald, therefore, overruled our opinions in McKinney and Jones as to their holdings concerning the requirements for the admissibility of evidence against a person not named in an arrest warrant when officers enter a dwelling to execute the arrest warrant. In light of Steagald, our opinion in Jones does not control this case. Hardin correctly notes that portions of Jones refer to a need for officers to have probable cause to believe the person named in arrest warrant is within a dwelling, but for the most part, those portions of Jones do not survive Steagald because those references to probable cause appeared within our analysis applying the standard (an arrest warrant plus probable cause) that the Supreme Court in Steagald rejected in favor of requiring a search warrant. Our other references in Jones to probable cause are mere dicta. We introduced our analysis in Jones by referring to the “fundamental” principle “that government officials cannot invade the privacy one’s home without probable cause for the entry” and summarized the Court’s holding in Payton by using the term “probable cause.” Jones, 641 F.2d at 428. Our summary of Payton, however, was not essential to our resolution of a case involving distinct facts and a different question of law, and that summary is therefore dicta. Bridewell v. Cincinnati Reds, 155 F.3d 828, 831 (6th Cir. 1998) (“The country club’s ability to satisfy the receipts test in [the statute] was not necessary to the holding in Brock [v. Louvers & Dampers, Inc., 817 F.2d 1255 (6th Cir.1987) ], which means that the part of the opinion discussing the receipts test is dicta.”). 2. Pruitt Does Not Control this Case Having dispensed with Hardin’s argument that Jones controls and establishes that Payton’s “reason to believe” standard is equivalent to probable cause, we now examine the government’s contention that Pruitt has definitively settled this issue. We conclude that Pruitt has not answered this question and that language in our Pruitt opinion purporting to adopt “a lesser reasonable belief standard” is merely dicta. In Pruitt, the defendant and the government disputed the correct interpretation of Payton’s “reason to believe” language and noted that a circuit split existed regarding the meaning of that language. Pruitt, 458 F.3d at 482. The defendant in Pruitt argued in support of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Gorman, 314 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2002), which “ruled that probable cause was required to support the reasonable belief that the subject of an arrest warrant was in a third-party’s residence.” Pruitt, 458 F.3d at 482 (citing Gorman, 314 F.3d at 1111-15). In response, the government argued that “a majority of the circuits that have ruled on the issue have determined that a lesser reasonable belief standard, and not probable cause, is sufficient to allow officers to enter a residence to enforce an arrest warrant, and that the officers here had adequate information in this case to meet this standard.” Id. The two-judge majority “agree[d]” and proceeded to explain why the Supreme Court’s “reason to believe” language in Payton should be understood as a standard lower than probable cause. Id. at 482-85. The majority then simply affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress. Judge Clay concurred in the judgment, but his opinion disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the Supreme Court had intended to establish, without any elaboration, a new standard of “reason to believe” in Payton. Judge Clay argued that “the ‘reason to believe’ standard under Payton ... is the functional equivalent of ‘probable cause’ and not some lesser standard.” Id. at 485 (Clay, J., concurring). Most importantly, however, Judge Clay highlighted that resolution of this dispute was unnecessary to the outcome of the case: reviewing the officers’ evidence demonstrated that “the officers in the instant case had probable cause to believe Defendant was inside [the residence] when they entered.” Id. at 491 (Clay, J., concurring). Although the majority opinion contained responses to certain other points made in Judge Clay’s concurring opinion, see id. at 483-84, the majority opinion did not disagree with Judge Clay’s assertion that the officers had satisfied the probable-cause standard. Indeed, nowhere did the majority state that the officers lacked probable cause to believe that the defendant was inside the residence when they entered. It is easy to understand the majority’s silence: the officers in Pruitt clearly had a great deal of evidence establishing probable cause to believe that the defendant was inside the residence when they entered. If the officers in Pruitt had evidence sufficient to satisfy either a standard of probable cause or a lesser reason-to-believe standard, then selecting one standard or the other would “not [be] necessary to the determination of the issue on appeal,” which was whether the officers violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. Swanson, 341 F.3d at 530; see also Pierre N. Leval, Judging Under the Constitution: Dicta About Dicta, 81 N.Y.U. L.Rev. 1249, 1256 (2006) (“A dictum is an assertion in a court’s opinion of a proposition of law which does not explain why the court’s judgment goes in favor of the winner.”). The preference of a particular standard would therefore be dicta. Indeed, two of our sister circuits have recognized this point and, in similar cases in which the officers’ knowledge satisfied both standards, the Third and Seventh Circuits simply affirmed the judgments without purporting to adopt one standard or the other. See Covington v. Smith, 259 Fed.Appx. 871, 874 (7th Cir.2008) (unpublished) (“We need not choose a side in this split because, again, under either standard the officers here were sufficiently certain that [the defendant] was present at the time of the search.”); United States v. Veal, 453 F.3d 164, 167 n. 3 (3rd Cir.2006) (“As we conclude that the probable cause standard was met, we need not determine whether a possibly lower standard of reasonable belief should be applied here.”). Considering the facts in Pruitt, it is clear that the officers had probable cause to believe that the defendant was inside the residence when they entered, and therefore the majority’s conclusion that Payton established “a lesser reasonable belief standard” was merely dicta. In Pruitt, the defendant faded to report to his parole officer in July 2004 and thereby became a fugitive from justice, with an arrest warrant issuing for him after law-enforcement officers were unable to find him at his listed address. Id. at 478. In August 2004, an anonymous female caller contacted the defendant’s parole officer and told the parole officer that the defendant was residing at a specific address in Lorain, Ohio. The parole officer believed the caller to be the ex-girlfriend of the defendant, and “[t]he caller told [the parole officer] that she had seen [the defendant] at the [specific] address within the past few hours, and that [the defendant] was in possession of drugs and a firearm.” Id. at 478-79. After the parole officer reported the tip to area police officers, the police officers began surveillance of the address. Id. Shortly thereafter, the officers observed a man knock at and enter the home; “the man exited the home a few minutes later, and sped away from the scene, prompting the officers to conduct a traffic stop.” Id. at 479. The driver “produced a driver’s license and recited a social security number.” Id. After the officers showed the driver a photograph of the defendant, the driver identified the defendant as “Meaty,” which the officers knew to be the defendant’s street name, and the driver “stated that ‘Meaty’ was inside the residence, and that ‘Meaty’ had refused to sell him crack cocaine on credit.” Id. Such information clearly is sufficient to establish probable cause to believe that the defendant was present inside the residence. Two witnesses reported the defendant’s very recent presence at the address, and, after the officers watch one of the witnesses enter and exit the residence, that witness stated he had just seen the defendant inside, identifying the defendant using his street name. Indeed, the officers in Pruitt had sufficient confidence in this information that “[a]fter receiving the information from [the driver], the officers went to the Lorain County Municipal Court to seek a search warrant” for the specified address in Lorain. Id. This information also convinced a prosecutor and a municipal court judge that probable cause existed, as the officers successfully obtained a search warrant and then entered the residence. Id. Due to several procedural errors, however, the district court concluded the search warrant was invalid: the detective forgot to add any information to the affidavit accompanying the warrant, and although the detective “recited the factual basis for the search warrant under oath [in municipal court], however, no transcript of his sworn statement was prepared.” Id. at 479, 480. We affirmed the district court’s ruling that the search warrant was invalid, stating that “the officers could not have had a good faith belief that the warrant was valid because the warrant was obtained with a ‘bare bones’ affidavit, and no transcript of [the detective’s] sworn statement was recorded by the Court.” Id. at 480-81. In Pruitt, the government therefore relied on the arrest warrant only because procedural errors had invalidated the search warrant that the officers had obtained, but the government’s evidence regarding the quantum of proof showing the likelihood that the defendant was inside the residence was the exact same evidence the officers had used in obtaining a search warrant. See id. at 483 (holding that the officers had sufficient evidence to believe that the defendant was inside the residence to execute the arrest warrant because the officers “relied on the anonymous tip given to [the defendant’s] parole officer, [the driver’s] identification of [the defendant] as ‘Meaty’ in a photograph, and his assertion that ‘Meaty’ was in the residence at that time selling drugs”). At no point did the majority in Pruitt suggest that officers had failed to demonstrate probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant; acknowledging the government’s argument that the detective had merely “fail[ed] ... to follow the correct procedure” and that the searching officers “relied on the warrant in good faith,” the majority reasoned that “such a bare bones affidavit cannot support a reasonable belief on the part of law enforcement officials that a warrant is valid.” Id. at 480-81. Had the above information failed to satisfy a probable-cause standard, the majority could have avoided analyzing whether the officers relied on the warrant in good faith; that is, the majority could have concluded that, even if the officers had properly prepared a complete affidavit and given sworn, recorded testimony, their evidence did not establish probable cause. In sum, careful review of the facts in Pruitt demonstrates that the officers in that case had assembled evidence sufficient to satisfy both a probable-cause standard and a reason-to-believe standard. The majority’s statements in Pruitt “holding” that Payton established a lesser reasonable-belief standard were unnecessary to the outcome of the case, and when “the facts of the instant case do not require resolution of the question” any statement regarding the issue is simply dicta. See Wright v. Murray Guard, Inc., 455 F.3d 702, 713 n. 4 (6th Cir.2006); see also Warshak v. United States, 532 F.3d 521, 525, 528 (6th Cir.2008) (en banc) (stating that “[t]he Constitution does not extend the ‘judicial Power’ to any legal question, wherever and however presented, but only to those legal questions presented in ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies,’ ” noting that “[cjoncerns about the premature resolution of legal disputes have particular resonance in the context of Fourth Amendment disputes,” and explaining that courts “reaeh[ ] case-by-case determinations that turn on the concrete, not the general, and offering incremental, not sweeping, pronouncements of law”). Having concluded that neither Jones nor Pruitt binds us in interpreting the meaning of Payton’s, “reason to believe” language, we explain below that this case, too, does not require that we adopt one standard or the other to evaluate the district court’s ruling on Hardin’s motion to suppress. That is, even assuming that a lesser reasonable-belief standard applies, the officers in this case did not have sufficient evidence to form a reasonable belief that Hardin was present in the apartment. B. The District Court Erred in Finding that the Officers had Sufficient Evidence to Believe that Hardin was Present in Apartment 48 1. Standard of Review “In considering a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we review its conclusions of law and application of the law to the facts, such as its finding of probable cause, de novo.” United States v. Kincaide, 145 F.3d 771, 779 (6th Cir. 1998). “[A] denial of a motion to suppress will be affirmed on appeal if the district court’s conclusion can be justified for any reason.” United States v. Pasquarille, 20 F.3d 682, 685 (6th Cir.1994). Further, in reviewing the denial of the motion, we may consider trial evidence in addition to the evidence admitted at the suppression hearing. United States v. Brown, 66 F.3d 124, 126 (6th Cir.1995); United States v. Perkins, 994 F.2d 1184, 1188 (6th Cir.1993) (stating that we have “held generally that [we are] ‘not restricted to considering evidence offered during the hearing on the motion to suppress’” and that we “may consider evidence offered during the trial of a case as it may bear on the question of probable cause”) (quoting United States v. McKinney, 379 F.2d 259, 264 (6th Cir. 1967)). 2. Analysis On appeal, the government contends that several grounds support affirming the district court’s denial of Hardin’s motion to suppress. These grounds include: (a) that the apartment manager provided reason to believe and/or probable cause to believe that Hardin was inside Apartment 48 and that the manager was not acting as an agent of the government; (b) that the information provided by the Cl alone established reason to believe and/or probable cause to believe that Hardin was inside the apartment; and (c) that, even if the apartment manager were acting as an agent of the government, the manager’s search was valid due to consent. We find fault with each of these arguments, which we address in turn. a. Was the Apartment Manager Acting as an Agent of the Government? The district court denied Hardin’s motion to suppress because it rejected Hardin’s argument that “the apartment manager’s entry into the apartment was police action and therefore the issue of whether the officers had probable cause must be based on the informant’s tip alone.” J.A. at 115 (Mot. to Suppress Mem. & Order at 2). The district court concluded that the manager was not acting as an agent of the government because it found that “the apartment manager had an independent business duty to enter the apartment and confirm whether the defendant was in the apartment.” Id. After reviewing the case law and the evidence in this case, we hold that the district court erred in concluding that the apartment manager was not acting as an agent of the government. Although the nature of the apartment manager’s actions was a crucial issue in this case, the magistrate judge essentially resolved the issue in the Memorandum and Order denying Hardin’s motion to reveal the identity of the Cl, an early stage in the case and prior to hearing any evidence or testimony on the matter. In the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation regarding Hardin’s motion to suppress, the magistrate judge referred in a footnote to the prior order determining that the apartment manager was not an agent of the government, adding briefly that the officers’ testimony at the suppression hearing about the apartment manager’s reaction upon learning of Hardin’s criminal record supported the prior finding that the manager had an independent business motivation for entering the apartment. J.A. at 96 (Mot. to Suppress R & R at 15 n. 1). Likewise, the district court summarized and relied upon the magistrate judge’s initial conclusion in overruling Hardin’s objections to both of the magistrate judge’s reports. J.A. at 112-13 (Mem. & Order Re: Mot. to Reveal Identity); J.A. at 115 (Mem. & Order Re: Mot. to Suppress). The magistrate judge’s conclusion that the apartment manager was not acting as an agent of the government misconstrued cases from both federal and state courts. The magistrate judge concluded that the apartment manager was not an agent of the government after applying the two-part test used in United States v. Howard, 752 F.2d 220 (6th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 770 F.2d 57, 62 (6th Cir.1985). The magistrate judge also relied upon a Tennessee Court of Appeals negligence case, Tedder v. Raskin, 728 S.W.2d 343, 347-48 (Tenn.Ct.App.1987), citing it as establishing the proposition that “[o]nce a landlord has notice sufficient to cause a reasonably prudent person to foresee the probability of such harm [to tenants resulting from third-party crimes on the premises], the landlord has a duty to act, and the failure to take reasonable steps to address the problem is a breach of that duty.” J.A. at 65-66 (Mem. & Order at 9-10) (citing Tedder, 728 S.W.2d at 348). Contrary to the conclusion of the magistrate judge, we believe that both Howard and Tedder support viewing the apartment manager as an agent of the government in this case. In Howard, we used a two-factor analysis developed by the Ninth Circuit to evaluate whether a private party is acting as an agent of the government, explaining that the “ ‘critical factors ... are: (1) the government’s knowledge or acquiescence, and (2) the intent of the party performing the search.’ ” 752 F.2d at 227 (quoting United States v. Walther, 652 F.2d 788, 792 (9th Cir.1981)). Howard involved an incident of alleged arson that both the police and the defendant’s insurer investigated, and we observed that “where, as here, the intent of the private party conducting the search is entirely independent of the government’s intent to collect evidence for use in a criminal prosecution, we hold that the private party is not an agent of the government.” Id. (emphasis added). In Hardin’s case, the officers testified that the ruse involving the apartment manager’s entry to Apartment 48 to check for a nonexistent water leak was “without a doubt” the officers’ idea. Indeed, at trial, Kings-bury even testified that the officers “sent the manager” to verify Hardin’s presence. J.A. at 267 (Trial Tr. at 33) (emphasis added). Prior to the officers’ arrival and conversation with him, the apartment manager had absolutely no intent to search Apartment 48. Far from being “entirely independent” of the government’s intent, the manager’s intent to search Apartment 48 was wholly dependent on the government’s intent. In Howard, we also noted that “[t]he insurance company investigator was rightfully on the property to determine the liability of the insurance company” in light of a consent clause in the insurance contract. Howard, 752 F.2d at 227-28. Here, in contrast, Tennessee law provides that a “landlord may enter the dwelling unit without consent of the tenant in case of emergency ” and defines emergency as “meanfing] a sudden, generally unexpected occurrence or set of circumstances demanding immediate action.” Tenn.Code Ann. § 66 — 28—403(b). The officers’ mere suspicion that a fugitive felon might be on the premises does not constitute an emergency, and, even if it did, surely the “immediate action” contemplated would not include the landlord’s unarmed, unescorted entry into the unit where the fugitive was suspected to be. The magistrate judge also incorrectly relied on Tedder as establishing an independent reason for the manager to enter the apartment. See J.A. at 65 (Mot. to Reveal Identity Mem. & Order at 9) (citing Tedder). Although in Ted-der, the Tennessee Court of Appeals did state that the common law imposes a burden on landlords to take due care in regard to injuries to tenants resulting from third-party crimes on the premises, Tedder, 728 S.W.2d at 348, the court specifically explained and narrowed its holding, reasoning that “[i]f we held that the unsubstantiated suspicion of one tenant ... is sufficient to give constructive notice of illegal activity, the landlord would be placed in the impossible position of being forced to act as a private law enforcement agency upon such ‘notice.’ ” Id. at 350. The court described such a holding as “untenable,” offering a further explanation that “the mere uncorroborated suspicion of illegal activity is not sufficient, as a matter of law, to give notice of a dangerous condition triggering the duty of the landlord to act.” Id. Instead, the court explained that “[a]s in other negligence actions, the plaintiff will have to prove that the landlord was on notice of an unreasonable risk or likelihood of danger to his tenants caused by a condition within his control.” Id. at 348. In affirming the trial court’s grant of a directed verdict for the landlord in Tedder, the court noted that that “the criminal acts alleged in this case did not occur in the parking lot or a common area over which the landlord exercised control, but rather inside the apartment of another tenant with a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Id. at 350. Contrary to the magistrate judge’s analysis, Tedder shows that the officers’ uncorroborated suspicions regarding the possible presence of Hardin in Apartment 48 did not give “notice” that would trigger the apartment manager’s duty to act. Given that the apartment manager had no independent duty to act, the magistrate judge and the district court erred in finding that the manager was not an agent of the government. In addition to our decision in Howard and the decision in Tedder, our decision in United States v. Lambert, 771 F.2d 83 (6th Cir.1985), also shows that the apartment manager.was acting as an agent of the government in this case. In Lambert, we cited Howard to support the proposition that “two facts must be shown” to demonstrate that a person was acting as an agent of the government: “First, the police must have instigated, encouraged or participated in the search” and “Second, the individual must have engaged in the search with the intent of assisting the police in their investigative efforts.” Lambert, 771 F.2d at 89. Here, the officers’ testimony clearly satisfies both elements. First, Kingsbury testified that the ruse to send the manager into the apartment was “without a doubt” his idea. J.A. at 171-72. (Hr’g Tr. at 29-30).' Second, Kingsbury testified that, after telling the manager about Hardin’s criminal history, thé manager expressed shock and said to the officers that “I don’t want him on my property.” J.A. at 151 (Hr’g Tr. at 9). This statement indicates that the manager had an intent to assist the officers with their effort to arrest and remove Hardin from the premises. Unlike the arson investigator for the insurance company in Howard, who was investigating the scene of the fire to determine his employer’s liability, the manager was acting only to assist the officers by determining whether Hardin was present so that they could arrest him. Finally, Tedder demonstrates that simply hearing the officers’ suspicion that Hardin might be present would not have exposed the manager to liability in that Tedder required plaintiffs complaining of a landlord’s negligence in preventing third-party criminal conduct “to prove that the landlord was on notice of an unreasonable risk or likelihood of danger to his tenants caused by a condition within his control,” and the court specifically noted that individual apartments were not such an area. Tedder, 728 S.W.2d at 348, 350 (emphasis added). In sum, because the officers urged the apartment manager to investigate and enter the apartment, and the manager, independent of his interaction with the officers, had no reason or duty to enter the apartment, we hold that the manager was acting as an agent of the government. b. Did the Information Provided by the Cl Establish Reason to Believe and/or Probable Cause that Hardin was Inside Apartment 48? Because we hold that the apartment manager was acting as an agent of the government, to sustain the district court’s denial of Hardin’s motion to suppress would require holding that the information provided by the Cl alone established sufficient reason to believe that Hardin was inside Apartment 48. As the majority explained in Pruitt, “Reasonable belief is established by looking at common sense factors and evaluating the totality of the circumstances.” Pruitt, 458 F.3d at 482. In light of our case law and cases from other circuits, we conclude that, even under this “lesser” standard, which we will assume for the purposes of this section is applicable, the Cl’s information was not sufficient to establish a reasonable belief that Hardin was inside the apartment. As an initial matter, neither the magistrate judge nor the district court squarely decided this issue; indeed, it is not entirely clear that the government argued to the district court that the information from the Cl alone provided either probable cause or sufficient evidence to form a reasonable belief that Hardin was inside the residence. Nonetheless, we have stated that “a denial of a motion to suppress will be affirmed on appeal if the district court’s conclusion can be justified for any reason.” United States v. Pasquarille, 20 F.3d 682, 685 (6th Cir.1994) (emphasis added). Furthermore, the government devoted a substantial portion of its appellate brief to making essentially this argument. See Appellee Br. at 21-30 (arguing that, under Pruitt, the Cl’s information furnished a sufficient “reason to believe” that Hardin was present in the apartment). We thus now turn to considering whether the Cl’s information alone was sufficient to establish probable cause. When compared to cases in our circuit and in our sister circuits, it is clear that the Cl’s information in this case, standing alone, did not establish even a lesser reasonable belief that Hardin was inside Apartment 48 at the time of the search. A common feature of these cases is recent, eyewitness evidence connecting the suspect to the residence, and often even conduct by the suspect that demonstrates a tie to the residence. The evidence in this case bears little resemblance to such cases. In this case, in contrast, the Cl — who was new to Kingsbury but who had shown reliability to Kingsbury by providing him accurate information regarding another case — provided relatively limited information. In sum, the Cl told Kingsbury: (1) that “[i]f he [Hardin] is staying anywhere [in the area], he will be staying at this apartment,” which the Cl was able to describe but not identify by number, J.A. at 161 (Hr’g Tr. at 19) (emphasis added); (2) that Hardin was likely driving “a tan-colored, four-door vehicle, maybe a Caprice,” J.A. at 160 (Hr’g Tr. at 18); (3) that the Cl “had bought crack cocaine from Mr. Hardin in the past,” J.A. at 161 (Hr’g Tr. at 19); (4) that the Cl believed Hardin would be staying at the apartment with an unnamed woman, J.A. at 162 (Hr’g Tr. at 20). The Cl, however, did not say when the Cl had last seen Hardin or even that the Cl had ever seen Hardin at that apartment. J.A. at 161-62 (Hr’g Tr. at 19-20). When the officers arrived at the apartment complex, they were able to identify the apartment that the Cl had described, saw a tan vehicle parked nearby, and learned from the apartment manager that the described apartment was leased to a woman. J.A. at 149-50 (Hr’g Tr. at 7-8). The limited information described above stands in stark contrast to that possessed by officers in other cases and fails to establish a reason to believe that Hardin was inside the apartment. For instance, in Pruitt, as described above, an anonymous caller contacted Pruitt’s parole officer, indicating some familiarity with Pruitt, and told the parole officer that she had seen Pruitt at a particular address “within the past few hours.” 458 F.3d at 478-79. Shortly after officers began' surveillance of that address, they observed a man enter and soon thereafter leave the house. Id. The officers stopped the man and showed him a photograph of Pruitt, whom the man identified, using Pruitt’s street name, as being currently inside the residence and in possession of crack cocaine. Id. at 479. Further, as the majority in Pruitt noted, id. at 482, in our pre-Payton case of United States v. McKinney, 379 F.2d 259 (6th Cir.1967), we affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress when FBI officers entered a residence to execute an arrest warrant based on three tips: one anonymous tip on the day of the search connecting the suspect to the residence, and two tips a month earlier from acquaintances of the suspect connecting the suspect to the residence. McKinney, 379 F.2d at 260-61, 264. Both cases thus involved recent — and, indeed, multiple — sources offering firsthand knowledge connecting the suspect to the residence. Cases from other circuits also typically involve such recent and firsthand knowledge or involve evidence of the suspect’s own conduct. For instance, in United States v. Lauter, 57 F.3d 212, 215 (2d Cir.1995), the Second Circuit observed that “a reliable Cl, whose father was the landlord at [the apartment complex], told [the officer] that [the suspect] moved to the basement apartment during the weekend.” Further, the Cl also said that the suspect “was unemployed and typically slept late.” Id. The Second Circuit accordingly held that “the officers had reason to believe— and, as the district court found, even had probable cause to believe — that [the suspect] lived in the basement apartment and was present at the time they sought to execute the warrant.” Id. In United States v. Gay, 240 F.3d 1222, 1224 (10th Cir.2001), the defendant had fled in 1997 while on bail for charges relating to the possession of cocaine, and as a result the United States Marshals Service “made numerous attempts to locate and arrest [the defendant],, based on an outstanding 1997 Drug Enforcement Agency arrest warrant issue for” the defendant. Id. In 1999, multiple informants provided information that the defendant was living with a relative, possibly an uncle, in Shawnee, Oklahoma. Based on this information, officers obtained a search warrant for residence of the defendant’s uncle, but when they executed the warrant, they did not find the defendant. However, a confidential informant at the just-searched residence told the officers that the defendant was presently dealing drugs and armed at all times, and that “[t]he confidential informant knew, from personal experience and numerous visits, [the defendant] lived approximately two miles away.” Id. at 1225. The informant then “accompanied the officers to [the specified residence], showed them the location of the house, pointed out the duplex, and told the officers [the defendant] was presently in his home.” Id. Finally, shortly after the informant stated that the defendant was inside the home, an officer “knocked loudly on the front door of the residence and heard a thud from inside the home, which suggested to him a person was inside the duplex at that time.” Id. at 1227. The Tenth Circuit held that this evidence established that “the officers reasonably believed [the defendant] lived in the residence and was within the residence at the time of entry.” Id. at 1228. In United States v. Route, 104 F.3d 59 (5th Cir.1997), the officers had arrest warrants for two suspects, the defendant Route and another individual named Crossley. When the officers arrived at Route’s residence, “they found Route backing his car out of the driveway and arrested him immediately.” Id. at 61-62. As the Fifth Circuit noted, the officers’ investigation had revealed that Crossley was likely living at Route’s residence as well, given that the officers “had confirmed via Crossley’s credit card applications, water and electricity bills, car registration, and receipt of mail that Crossley at least was representing to others that he was residing at” Route’s residence. Id. at 62. When the officers arrested Route, he refused consent to search his residence, and an officer “walk[ed] around the perimeter of the house in search of Crossley” and “heard the television inside the residence and thus suspected that Crossley might be inside the residence.” Id. at 62. The officer had also “noticed another vehicle remaining in the driveway.” Id. at 63. As a result, the officer entered the residence to arrest Crossley; although the officer did not find Crossley, he observed in plain view “computer equipment and other items that he believed had been used in the commission of the bank fraud.” Id. at 62. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendant Route’s motion to suppress this evidence, reasoning that the officers’ investigation and observations at the scene supported a “reasonable belief that Crossley resided at” Route’s residence and “were sufficient to form a reasonable belief that Crossley was in fact in the residence at the time of the warrant.” Id. at 63. In contrasting these cases to the facts in this case, we do not mean to say that officers must have multiple sources before entering a residence to execute an arrest warrant. Rather, these cases simply illustrate the gulf separating the amount and quality of knowledge possessed by the officers in this case from the officers in those cases in which entries have been found lawful. Had the officer testified that the Cl had seen Hardin at the apartment, this would be a much closer case. Instead, the officers knew only that a single confidential informant claimed that if Hardin was staying in the area, he would likely be at a particular described, but unidentified, apartment leased to an unidentified woman and that Hardin was driving a tan, four-door vehicle. J.A. at 160-61 (Hr’g Tr. at 18-19). The Cl also asserted only that the Cl “had bought crack cocaine from Mr. Hardin in the past” but the Cl did not say when the Cl had last seen Hardin or even that the Cl had ever seen Hardin at the particular apartment. J.A. at 161-62 (Hr’g Tr. at 19-20). Certainly, the officers did learn that the described apartment belonged to a woman and that a tan vehicle was parked nearby, but the officers also learned that the apartment manager had never seen Hardin before. J.A. at 150-51 (Hr’g Tr. at 8-9). As a result, the officers may well have reasonably suspected that Hardin was generally living at this residence, but they had essentially no evidence to indicate that Hardin was then inside the apartment. Because Payton requires at a minimum that the officers have “a reasonable belief that the subject of the arrest warrant is within the residence at that time,” Pruitt, 458 F.3d at 483 (emphasis added), the officers’ entry violated the Fourth Amendment. c. Was the Officers’ Search Valid Due to Consent? Finally, as an alternative basis to uphold the district court’s denial of Hardin’s motion to suppress, the government argues that, even if we view the apartment manager as an agent of the government, the manager’s search of Apartment 48 was legal due to consent obtained through the use of the “ruse.” Appellee Br. at 35-36. This argument lacks merit. The only evidence regarding the issue of consent demonstrates that the manager did not obtain consent prior to entry, making the entry illegal. At the suppression hearing, Hardin testified that the manager, using his own key, simply entered the apartment and called out “Maintenance” after he entered. J.A. at 221-22 (Hr’g Tr. at 79-80). This evidence demonstrates that the apartment manager entered the apartment without receiving any communication or consent from any individual inside. Even if a consent later followed, “[w]hen an individual consents to a search after an illegal entry is made, consent is not valid and ‘suppression is required of any items seized during the search ..., unless the taint of the initial entry has been dissipated before the “consents” to search were given.’ ” United States v. Chambers, 395 F.3d 563, 569 (6th Cir.2005) (quoting United States v. Buchanan, 904 F.2d 349, 356 (6th Cir.1990)); see also United States v. Hotal, 143 F.3d 1223, 1228 (9th Cir.1998) (“Consent to search that is given after an illegal entry is tainted and invalid under the Fourth Amendment.”). Furthermore, even assuming that the apartment manager merely called out through the closed door and did obtain consent prior to physically entering the apartment, then the manager’s use of the ruse that he was investigating a water leak invalidated any possible consent. As a general proposition, although a ruse or officers’ undercover activity does not usually violate individuals’ rights, we have noted that “[w]here, for example, the effect of the ruse is to convince the resident that he or she has no choice but to invite the undercover officer in, the ruse may not pass constitutional muster.” United States v. Copeland, No. 95-5596, 1996 WL 306556, at *3 n. 3 (6th Cir. June 6, 1996) (citing People v. Jefferson, 43 A.D.2d 112, 350 N.Y.S.2d 3 (N.Y.App.Div.1973), as holding that consent was “not voluntary and search violated the] Fourth Amendment where officers obtained entry by saying that they were investigating [a] gas leak”); see also 2 Wayne R. LaFave et al., Crim. PROC. § 3.10(c) (3d ed. 2007) (“[W]hen the police misrepresentation of purpose is so extreme that it deprives the individual of the ability to make a fair assessment of the need to surrender his privacy ... the consent should not be considered valid.”). Likewise, in United States v. Carter, 378 F.3d 584, 588 (6th Cir.2004) (en banc), we recognized that “[a] number of cases ... have held that the confrontation between police and suspect was impermissibly tainted by ‘duress, coercion [or] trickery.’ ” (quoting Jones, 641 F.2d at 429) (second alteration in original); see also Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 301, 87 S.Ct. 408, 17 L.Ed.2d 374 (1966) (“The Fourth Amendment can certainly be violated by guileful as well as by forcible intrusions into a constitutionally protected area.”) We therefore conclude that the record does not show that the manager obtained consent when he entered the apartment; he simply used his own key and entered the unit. Additionally, even if the manager did receive consent, the ruse regarding the water leak presented a situation in which an individual would feel “no choice but to invite the undercover officer in” arid any consent was invalid. Copeland, 1996 WL 306556, at *3 n. 3; see also United States v. Giraldo, 743 F.Supp. 152,153-55 (E.D.N.Y.1990) (granting defendant’s motion to suppress evidence when officer “pretended to be a gas company worker and told defendant she was checking for a gas leak” because “ ‘[c]onsent’ was obtained by falsely inducing fear of an imminent life-threatening danger”). In sum, we conclude that whether Pay-ton involves a probable-cause standard or a lesser reasonable-belief standard remains an open question in our circuit, to be settled in an appropriate case. Further, we hold that the apartment manager in this case was acting as an agent of the government and that the officers’ remaining information failed to establish even a reasonable belief that Hardin was inside Apartment 48. The search of Apartment 48 therefore violated Hardin’s Fourth Amendment rights, and all evidence obtained as a result — the entirety of the evidence in this case — should have been suppressed. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of Hardin’s motion to suppress, VACATE Hardin’s conviction, and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. CONCURRING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART, AND DISSENTING FROM JUDGMENT ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part; dissenting from the judgment. I agree that the district court’s reliance on Tennessee tort law was misplaced, but I disagree with the remainder of the majority opinion. Instead, I find that Pruitt’s lesser-reasonable-belief standard is the law of this Circuit; that police — or agents of the police — may obtain consent to enter a suspect’s hideout by ruse or deception; and that — at least since Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 126 S.Ct. 2159, 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006) — exclusion of the evidence would not be the proper remedy in this case. More significantly, I disagree with the majority’s treatment of United States v. Pruitt, 458 F.3d 477, 482 (6th Cir.2007). By ignoring Pruitt’s clear reasoning and plain language, and instead conducting a de novo reconsideration of Pruitt’s facts in an effort to satisfy its preferred (alternative) version of the law, the majority has effectively circumvented Pruitt’s prece-dential effect. But, in doing so, the majority has also nullified Pruitt’s holding (i.e., recast it as “dicta”) and supplanted Pndtt’s majority opinion with its concurring opinion. This is not the proper role for a panel of this court. Moreover, by authorizing this tactic, this opinion sets a troublesome precedent. While I recognize that, under this new precedent, the possibility now exists that the analysis that follows might be resurrected by a future panel — i.e., some future panel could employ the majority’s device and reconsi