More Questions Than Answers!
I really don't mean to be sarcastic or crass here, but this scenario has more holes in it than a chunk of Swiss cheese and is more ambiguous than a presidential candidate's campaign speech, because every time I read the post over, I came away with more questions. But the two questions that stood out most in my mind were: Why would she tell him to leave the house and lock (or shut) the door behind him, and why search the attic?
The way I see it, is that the police were there to pick him up (arrest him) because he had already violated the terms of his parole, which is why he was arrested when he stepped outside and locked the door behind him per your advice. Because you knew that as a felon on parole, your boyfriend is also a "Fourth Waiver" which makes his person, house, and effects subject to warrantless search at any time. You also knew that a person's Fourth Waiver attaches to any vehicle or structure (home, office, etc) he happens to be in, whether his own or not.
Another point to ponder was the reason the police did not leave after making the arrest and were hell bent on searching not only the house, but the attic as well. And this is where the act of closing the door on the police comes in to shed some light on the matter.
Closing the door on the police who are only making inquiries and holds no warrant for entry is not a criminal act in and of itself. In fact, you can not only refuse to open the door to them, you can even instruct them through the window to get off your property. But when your boyfriend stepped out and identified himself, he was arrested for parole violation and a search of the house became inevitable retrospectively based on the time period between closing the door on the police and stepping out and closing it.
The police suspected that the period was used to conceal or destroy any incriminating evidence, and your boyfriend did not disappoint since he closed the door on the police in order to go up to the attic to hide the shotgun which he had with him in the house. The gun was not yours to begin with because you said the police found "a shotgun" and not "a shotgun that belongs to me" and I suspect your boyfriend was charged with that offense when fingerprints on the shotgun came back to him.
Now, I highly agree with Jharris in that some cops do indeed lie, and I will go further and say that some of them are not averse even to filing false reports, fabrication of evidence, and even the occasional planting and framing. But it does not make sense in this instance for them to lie about you being the one who gave them permission to search the house because it is just too easy to disprove by way of your statement to the contrary. Which brings us to the main question: Can they do this?
You said that he is being cajoled into taking an offer of 3&8; such offers are made by the D.A.'s office at the Trial Readiness stage, which is the step after arraignment and bail hearing and it sounds like he did not accept this offer. So, next stop is Evidentiary Hearing in which the judge decides if there is enough substantial evidence to set the case for trial; you should and must appear for the defense and deny giving consent for the search which will effectively end the case on the basis of Illegal Search and Seizure.
Next to last point: If you did not give consent for the search and the police entered anyway, then the entry was by force and you did not mention any broken front door or lock, or a broken window or any other sign of a forced entry. But you did mention your mother was in the house painting at the time the police knocked on the door; could it be that she was scared into giving consent to search the house? Where was she when all this was happening?
And finally; fire department does not help law enforcement conduct searches of a premises, but can be called to a situation where the police suspect that the evidence in question might be, or contain chemically hazardous material! The kind found in…
fredrikklaw