D.Ore.: ICE agents’ inconsistent testimony about 9 pm knock-and-talk led court to hold consent invalid

ICE’s knock and talk led to invalid consent, and the nature of the ICE officer’s testimony led the court to credit the defendant. The knock and talk occurred on a cold night at 9 pm and defendant told them to come back, but they did not want to leave. They also chose not to go across the street from their office and get a search warrant. Their testimony was vague and inconsistent, but the defendant’s was clear. “From all of the above, I conclude that the three ICE agents’ actions were the very anthesis of proper law enforcement practices and should not be condoned.” United States v. Freeman, 635 F. Supp. 2d 1205 (D. Ore. 2009):

For the reasons set forth below, I find Freeman’s account of the events that transpired on November 29, 2006, to be the most credible, and therefore rely on his testimony to resolve any disputes of fact and to make my findings in this case. For Freeman, what occurred that night was one traumatic event, which he described with detail, clarity, and consistency. In contrast, the three ICE agents–who each testified that in the course of his law enforcement career had conducted between fifty and one hundred “knock and talk” investigations–lacked detail and suffered from a number of inconsistencies in several important respects. I find that the three agents’ conflicting portrayals of what occurred that night at Freeman’s home lack credibility, and that the methods used to obtain information from Freeman are highly suspect.

The IRS agent’s affidavit for search warrant fairly presented probable cause to believe that plaintiff was involved in money laundering, so the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted on a FranksBivens claim. Thunder Island Amusements v. Ewald, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55199 (N.D. N.Y. June 29, 2009).*

“It is somewhat unclear when the purpose of the traffic stop was complete in the instant case because no traffic citation was issued. The Court need not answer that question, however, as the Court finds that the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain the men for a Terry stop.” United States v. Hopewell, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55272 (S.D. Ohio February 17, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.