MO: Entry to talk to defendant about stolen car was without exigency and suppressed

Officers got word that a man was trying to sell a stolen car, and they gave defendant’s address. One drove by defendant’s house five times before finding the car there, so he called for back up, doing a knock-and-talk over the car. One officer stayed by the car and two went to the door. A woman answered the door, and they asked to talk to any man inside. Defendant appeared and walked to the door. When he saw it was the police, he turned around and briskly walked away. One officer at the door entered to stop him. The warrantless entry was unlawful because there was no exigency. The state’s claim that he was capable of destroying evidence or fleeing out the back door is completely unpersuasive; this wasn’t hot pursuit. First, the car was guarded, so it wasn’t going anywhere. Second, there was no belief there was any physical evidence inside [except maybe the keys] that could be destroyed by defendant. The finding of papers for the car was thus suppressed. State v. Hastings, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1308 (November 25, 2014).

There was probable cause for an automobile search, not just reasonable suspicion based on furtive movements. United States v. Law, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22116 (9th Cir. November 21, 2014).*