IA: Answering statement officer was coming in with a question was acquiescence

The state conceded that hot pursuit didn’t justify their entry and relied on consent. “Nor could Boley’s act of letting the officers in be construed as consent. When the officer said she would be coming in, Boley responded with a question – ‘Into the garage?’ – which a reasonable person could construe as surprise at the request. … As for her responses of ‘Okay,’ they were nothing more than acquiescence.” Entry suppressed. State v. Boley, 2020 Iowa App. LEXIS 691 (July 22, 2020).

Defendant’s request for an expert in human ability to smell marijuana was for a fishing expedition into whether the officer was credible that he could smell it. Therefore, no error to deny. State v. Leonard, 2020 Iowa App. LEXIS 743 (July 22, 2020).

This entry was posted in Constitutionally protected area, Suppression hearings. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.