LA5: Knock-and-talk cannot be used to create exigency

Officers came to defendant’s house because a couple of drug suspects had visited him. The officers’ knock-and-talk didn’t gain them entry into the house, and a knock-and-talk can’t be used to create exigent circumstances. A protective sweep was unjustified because officers didn’t even think there was somebody else in the house. An entry into the backyard was also unjustified. State v. Cowans, 2018 La. App. LEXIS 1315 (La. App. 5 Cir. July 6, 2018); State v. Salinas, 2018 La. App. LEXIS 1316 (La. App. 5 Cir. July 6, 2018).

Defendant was arrested inside his home without a warrant in violation of Payton, and he was Mirandized and made a statement in transit to the police station. That statement was not suppressed under Harris v. New York. The gun used against him was found during a search with a warrant independent of his statement. United States v. Cooper, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 18450 (9th Cir. July 6, 2018).*

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

Comments are closed.