TN: Anonymous report did not support detention of occupants of parked car

An officer with an anonymous report of drug activity in a parked car could approach the car to inquire, but that was it. Corroboration here was only to the extent of the fact the car was where it was said to be and two people were in it. Nothing else was learned from talking to the people in the car to justify further detention, and the motion to suppress was properly granted. State v. Wilson, 2008 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 962 (December 11, 2008).*

Police officer’s conduct of a knock-and-talk looking for a person involved in a rollover accident were engaged in a criminal investigation, and the occupant was entitled to warnings of a right to refuse entry. State v. Freepons, 147 Wn. App. 689, 197 P.3d 682 (2008):

The Washington Supreme Court has noted that “there is a fundamental difference between requesting consent to search a home and requesting consent to enter a home for other legitimate investigatory purposes.” Khounvichai, 149 Wn.2d at 564 (emphasis added). Here, the deputies’ intention to search the residence for evidence of a crime was clear.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.