E.D.Ky.: This knock-and-talk didn’t turn into a “constructive entry”

“Considering the totality of the circumstances, and for whatever reason the officers had for going to Defendant’s residence, the Court concludes that the knock and talk procedure used here did not give rise to a constructive entry. As discussed above, the hallmarks of a constructive entry are drawn weapons, raised voices, coercive demands, or many officers in plain sight. Grayer, 232 F. App’x at 450. None of these tactics were used here. Based on the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing, none of the officers ever drew their weapons or raised their voices. Moreover, the Court concludes that no officer made any coercive demands of Defendant.” United States v. Taylor, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115008 (E.D. Ky. July 1, 2024).

“That bar is low: a warrant affidavit needs to show only a ‘modicum of evidence, however slight, between the criminal activity at issue and the place to be searched.’ United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 497 (6th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). Here, the affidavit provided the following details: … This suffices for good faith.” United States v. Woodall, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 15936 (6th Cir. June 28, 2024).*

The evidence supports that defendant consented to the search of his cell phone. United States v. White, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 15948 (11th Cir. July 1, 2024).*

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

Comments are closed.