D.Me.: In a knock-and-talk for CP, it was not unreasonable to tell defendant he had the choice of consenting to seizure of the computer or the house pending arrival of a SW

Officers came to defendant’s house essentially as a knock and talk to obtain child pornography on his computer which they knew he had. They told him he could consent to a seizure of the computer while they got a warrant or they would seize the house while they got the warrant and not let him inside. “As to Mr. Mumme’s claim that he became overwhelmed when Det. Tupper refused to allow him to enter the house to call his lawyer, I do not find Det. Tupper’s conduct coercive. Det. Tupper made clear to Mr. Mumme that the reason he was not allowed into his home was that the officers intended to secure the house while they applied for a warrant. This was a lawful step. … Moreover, Mr. Mumme was never told that he could not use a cell phone or leave the premises to place a call to his lawyer. Taking into account the totality of the circumstances, I find that Mr. Mumme’s consent to the seizure of his devices was voluntary.” United States v. Mumme, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94892 (D. Me. June 6, 2018).

This entry was posted in Consent, Knock and talk, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.