Pearson+v.+Callahan

Pearson vs. Callahan deals with a man named Afton Callahan was known as a drug dealer. Officers sent an undercover informant to gain evidence and gave the informant tools to help him. Callahan and the informant made the deal then the informant signaled the officers to come and search the house since they were able to get the evidence. Callahan gave consent to the officers to search the house and officers found methamphetamines along with the marked bill. Callahan and two others were arrested that day. Callahan was charged for possessing and distributing of methamphetamines, but Callahan challenged the officers based on them for not having a warrant to search his house and the evidence was not admissible. Callahan filed a claim against the officers for violation against his rights and the state for saying the evidence was valid due to the "consent-once-removed" doctrine. The Supreme Court dismissed the actions on the officers for immunity for the actions the officers thought on the grounds of the doctrine gave them the right. The Supreme Court didn't believe that the actions of the informant allowed to give the officers the excuse to go and search the house without a warrant.