E.D.Ky.: Ruse to get inside a house didn’t void knock and talk consent

Officers came to defendant’s house to do a knock and talk but used a ruse to get inside: They were looking for a third person with a child support warrant for him. The defendant let them in to check the ID of a second man inside, just to be sure he wasn’t the guy. Once inside, they asked about cocaine and defendant voluntarily gave it up. The ruse wasn’t invalid. United States v. Rose, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115805 (E.D. Ky. August 20, 2014).

Defendant’s frisk was not justified in its inception and went too far. No weapon was felt and the officer then lifted defendant’s shirt and saw a baggie protruding slightly from his waistline. Lifting the shirt went beyond a weapons frisk that already failed to reveal a weapon. Consent to search was also involuntary. United States v. Ortiz, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115537 (N.D. Cal. August 19, 2014).*

Massachusetts notes that “target standing” is still an open question there. The case before it didn’t require the question be resolved. Commonwealth v. Vacher, 469 Mass. 425 (August 19, 2014).

This entry was posted in Consent, Stop and frisk. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.