CA6: Officers doing a knock-and-talk for meth were confronted with an emergency justifying entry

Officers responded to a noise complaint and ran into a guy outside who said he was there to buy methamphetamine. They went to the door and smelled meth being manufactured. Nobody answered. They went around to the back to see if anyone was home, and they saw a burn pile with evidence of a meth lab there. They saw surveillance cameras and pointed them down while they sent for a search warrant. Shortly after that, a woman came out and saying that somebody OD’d inside. Officers went in, and saw a gun. They opened doors for safety until they knew who was there. Paraphernalia and pills were seen. All this made it into the search warrant, and this was all reasonable. United States v. Manning, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11047 (6th Cir. June 17, 2016).*

Defendant filed a Franks challenge to a search warrant for his cell phone based on questioning the word “inappropriate” for photographs that would be in it looking at a statement from his girlfriend about touching her daughter because she didn’t use that word. On the totality, he doesn’t meet his Franks burden. United States v. Henry, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77281 (D.S.D. June 1, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Emergency / exigency, Knock and talk. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.