Officer confronting citizen on the street expects citizen to be detained, but a knock and talk can be refused. State v. Jarrell, 994 So. 2d 620 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2008):<\/p>\n
There is a clear distinction between the police detaining a suspect on the street as authorized by Article 215.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the police knocking on a suspect’s door. When stopped on the street, a suspect has no choice but to submit to the authority of the police. When the door is opened in response to a knock, it is the consent of the occupant to confront the caller. There is no compulsion, force or coercion involved in the latter situation. State v. Sanders<\/em>, 374 So.2d 1186, 1188 (La. 1979). HN4A search conducted pursuant to consent is an exception to the requirements of both warrant and probable cause. State v. Johnson<\/em>, 98-0264, p. 5 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12\/28\/98), 728 So.2d 885, 887.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Officer’s mistake as to what type of weapon did not make unreasonable looking for the weapon. Whether it was brass knuckles or a gun was not material. United States v. Murph, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69324 (D. Neb. August 26, 2008):<\/p>\n
Moreover, even taking into account Officer Gordon’s mistake in believing that the object was brass knuckles rather than a gun, officers had reasonable suspicion for the searches under Terry<\/em><\/a>. United States v. Bailey<\/em>, 417 F.3d 873, 877 (8th Cir. 2005) (a mistaken belief suffices, if officers do not know that it is mistaken and act reasonably). Officer Gordon testified that he believed he saw a weapon, and his mistake related to the type of weapon. No case law has been cited indicating that this type of mistake cannot support an otherwise legal Terry<\/em> stop or search.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading