Officer had authority to make a community caretaking entry into the defendant’s home because of child inside who was left alone after his parents were arrested outside [how convenient]. United States v. Johnson, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80945 (E.D. Cal. August 20, 2008)*:<\/p>\n
Here, Officer Gonzales was confronted with a hazardous and uninhabitable dwelling occupied by a 14 year old, both of whose parents had been placed under arrest and were being transported to jail. Due to deplorable living conditions and the risk to the health of the child, the Officer had to call Child Protective Services. The Officers’ normal practice is to review the residence to determine whether it is habitable, and whether or not, if an appropriate guardian is available, the child can be maintained in the residence or has to be placed in foster care.<\/p>\n
Further, Mrs. Johnson had consented to the protective sweep by authorizing the Officers to look for her daughter to assure that her daughter was not left with Junior.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Plain clothes and armed ICE officers came to defendant’s house to do a knock-and-talk about his subscribing to child porn websites. The officers were able to coax the defendant into letting them look at his computer, and the court finds this was voluntary consent. United States v. Bach, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80711 (D. Me. August 25, 2008)* (Comment:<\/em> This is similar to innumerable cases I’ve read and a few I’ve handled. With patience, the police can often get consent to look at a computer. I won’t say “usually” because we never know how many times the police do not get consent. Once the police do the knock and talk, they would admit that everything would likely disappear if they got a warrant to come back. But, I’m not so sure that that would happen even the majority of the time.).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading