FL-1: Ruse for 3 a.m. knock-and-talk did not make consent involuntary

The use of a ruse to wake up the defendant at 3 a.m. to tell him that his car had been burglarized did not make the subsequent consent invalid after the police explained the ruse and their desire to search. Luna-Martinez v. State, 984 So. 2d 592 (Fla. App. 2 DCA 2008) (Comment: This is so bizarre. At least my state recognizes that a 3 a.m. knock-and-talk is invalid.)

A knock-and-talk of the home does not constitutionally require advice of rights to refuse a search. State v. Flores, 144 N.M. 217, 2008 NMCA 74, 185 P.3d 1067 (Ct. App. 2008) certiorari denied, No. 31,005, April 23, 2008.*

A driver’s compliance with the Minnesota implied-consent law does not create a waiver of the driver’s statutory physician-patient privilege regarding an alcohol-concentration test result taken solely for medical-treatment purposes. Because Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd. 1(d) contains no exception for alcohol-concentration test results, absent a specific waiver of the statutory physician-patient privilege, alcohol-concentration test results and medical records are not admissible in a criminal prosecution. State v. Poetschke, 750 N.W.2d 301 (Minn. App. 2008).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.