CA4: Denial of consent to enter but admission of meth justified seizure of house to get a SW

Officers came to defendant’s house to do a knock-and-talk about a methamphetamine lab. “Then one of the troopers asked Appellant if he would consent to a search of the home. He refused to consent and informed the troopers they were going to need a warrant. In response, one of the troopers asked Appellant, ‘What are you worried about? What are you concerned with?’ J.A. 48. Appellant replied that there were ‘two jars upstairs that had been used for something.’ Id. Appellant explained that the jars contained ‘[t]hat stuff that everybody’s making.’ Id. at 49.” Considering all that they knew, along with “Appellant’s statements and criminal history, the troopers believed Appellant was referring to methamphetamine. With that, the troopers secured the home. Trooper Blake left to secure a warrant; Sergeant Dornburg, Trooper Baier, Appellant, and the boy stayed behind in Appellant’s kitchen.” All this was reasonable under these facts. United States v. Belt, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6993 (4th Cir. April 28, 2015).