D.Ariz.: Knock-and-talk led to immediate flight and hot pursuit

Officers came to defendant’s house for a knock-and-talk, and they saw people fleeing and smelled marijuana. This was exigent circumstances for a “hot pursuit” entry. United States v. Valenzuela-Espinoza, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77404 (D. Ariz. August 27, 2009).*

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not asking more questions on cross-examination. He vigorously challenged the third-party’s consent on essentially the same grounds alleged now, but his failure to go further in cross was a matter of strategy. United States v. Snype, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77416 (S.D. N.Y. August 21, 2009).*

Defendant was stopped based on classic Terry factors of suspicious activity around banks. When he was frisked, stuff was found that reasonably led the officers to believe that there would be additional evidence in the vehicle, which there was. United States v. Datcu, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77197 (D. Minn. August 4, 2009).*

Reasonable suspicion developed immediately on defendant’s stop, and it justified a patdown. United States v. Maxwell, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77519 (E.D. Mo. June 18, 2009):

Here, the officer had reasonable suspicion to expand the scope of the stop to request consent to search, based on Defendant’s conduct. Defendant was driving a rental car, and was exceedingly nervous, not looking at the officer and barely speaking to him, even though Defendant plainly knew the officer well enough to address him by his first name. Defendant also made a cryptic comment, stating, “You know what’s going on.” Both while he was in the car, and after he exited and was walking to the patrol car, Defendant was looking around in a manner that caused the officer to have concern that he might try to flee. Moreover, he observed a large bulge in Defendant’s pocket.

Officer’s experience indicated that he was observing a drug buy going down by the way the defendant met up with a car stopping near him and then leaned in. The way he had his hands in his pockets made the officer believe the defendant had a gun. United States v. Dubose, 579 F.3d 117 (1st Cir. 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.