context: In determining whether a private citizen acted as a government agent, we consider "(1) whether the government knew of and acquiesced in the intrusive conduct, and (2) whether the private actor's purpose was to assist law enforcement efforts rather than to further his own ends." As part of our inquiry, we also consider whether the government "openly encouraged or cooperated in the search."
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 765 F.2d 1088, 1090
citation_a.parenthetical: affirming denial of a motion to suppress in part because nothing evidenced that the government openly encouraged or cooperated in the private citizen's search
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Ford, 765 F.2d 1088, 1090 (11th Cir.1985) (affirming denial of a motion to suppress in part because nothing evidenced that the government openly encouraged or cooperated in the private citizen’s search); see also United States v. Smythe, 84 F.3d 1240, 1243 (10th Cir.1996) (noting that the “knowledge and acquiescence” criteria “encompass the requirement that the government agent must also affirmatively encourage, initiate or instigate the private action.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 84 F.3d 1240, 1243
citation_b.parenthetical: noting that the "knowledge and acquiescence" criteria "encompass the requirement that the government agent must also affirmatively encourage, initiate or instigate the private action."
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Ford, 765 F.2d 1088, 1090 (11th Cir.1985) (affirming denial of a motion to suppress in part because nothing evidenced that the government openly encouraged or cooperated in the private citizen’s search); see also United States v. Smythe, 84 F.3d 1240, 1243 (10th Cir.1996) (noting that the “knowledge and acquiescence” criteria “encompass the requirement that the government agent must also affirmatively encourage, initiate or instigate the private action.”).