Defendant moved out just before the search, so he lacked standing

Defendant was in the process of moving in with deceased, but he admittedly had moved out a couple of days before. He said he had filled out a rental application but had not fully moved in before the break up. He had no standing to challenge the search. He also failed to show he qualified as a guest for standing. Dunn v. State, 2007 Ark. LEXIS 528 (October 4, 2007).*

Defendant’s 15 year old son consented to an entry for the police to talk to defendant in a knock and talk. Defendant was asleep in his bedroom, and his son led the police to the bedroom, saying “He’s in here.” The knock and talk was not invalid, and the son could consent to this limited entry to talk to defendant. Perkins v. Commonwealth, 237 S.W.3d 215 (Ky. App. 2007).*

State implied consent law was complied with, and defendant could not revoke implied consent. State v. Cochran, 2007 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 785 (October 1, 2007):

We note that to allow a defendant to consult with his attorney and revoke his consent to testing hours, days, or even weeks after a breath or blood sample is collected would essentially circumvent the firmly established rule in this state that a defendant has no right to consult with counsel before he submits to the test. See State v. Frasier, 914 S.W.2d 467, 471 (Tenn. 1996). The appellant is not entitled to relief.

Dog sniff during the pendency of a traffic stop checking records was not invalid, and reasonable suspicion was developing anyway. State v. Kempa, 235 S.W.3d 54 (Mo. App. 2007).*