S.D.Fla.: Knock-and-talk did not permit sending officer to the roof

Defendant was suspected of planning home invasion robberies, and Miami-Dade officers surveilled his apartment for three days, with nothing happening. Then they decided to do a knock-and-talk, and one officer went to the roof to get a better view. The knock-and-talk was valid, and entry was consented to by someone with authority. However, the view from the roof was excessive for a knock-and-talk because it is not a part of the premises that people are invited to, such as the front door. From the roof, defendant was observed through a window handling several firearms. United States v. Pupo-Reynaldo, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71171 (S.D. Fla. June 6, 2011):

Although the undersigned finds that Ms. Baguet invited law enforcement officers inside the defendant’s residence and voluntarily consented to the search of residence, observations made by Detectives Gonzalez and Adderly while on the rooftop of the defendant’s terrance must be suppressed. The detectives’ access to the rooftop of the defendant’s residence was not permissible. United States v. Taylor, 458 F.3d 1201, 1204 (11th Cir. 2006) (officers are permitted to approach a residence in the same manner as any private citizen would approach a residence). Detectives Gonzalez and Adderly observed the defendant attempting to dispose of firearms from the second story window at the back of the residence. At the time, Ms. Baguet had not yet provided consent to search the residence. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that these observations be suppressed.

[In the overall scheme of things, the prosecution goes forward, and one witness doesn’t get to testify.]

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.