Request for consent inside after a knock-and-talk is not subject to a higher level of scrutiny

Knock-and-announce and request for consent inside the home is not inherently coercive, and there is no heightened scrutiny of such requests for consent. “In sum, the police were not required to request permission to speak to Rivera or specifically inform him that he had a right to refuse to speak to them.” People v. Rivera, 156 Cal. App. 4th 60, 67 Cal. Rptr. 3d 19 (4th Dist. 2007), publication status of this document has been changed by the court from unpublished to published October 16, 2007, on remand from People v. Rivera, 41 Cal.4th 304, 59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 473, 159 P.3d 60 (2007).*

Traffic stop of another person led to reason to conduct a knock-and-talk at defendant’s residence. When the officers knocked, a female inside ran to another room. This concerned the officers about their own safety, and they followed her, finding a gun and drugs in the room she was hiding in. The entry and finding of the drugs and gun was valid. Hamilton v. Commonwealth, 2007 Ky. App. LEXIS 362 (September 28, 2007).

Officers had probable cause for defendant’s stop and felony take down. State v. Williams, 2007 Ohio 5489, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 4817 (3d Dist. October 15, 2007).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.