{"id":3509,"date":"2011-07-10T08:39:38","date_gmt":"2009-11-05T23:21:02","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-11-06T20:21:33","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3509","title":{"rendered":"WI: In a knock-and-talk, opening door and slamming it was justification for an entry to prevent destruction of evidence"},"content":{"rendered":"

Officers conducted a knock-and-talk, and defendant opened the door, saw the police, and slammed the door. That was sufficient exigency of possible destruction of evidence to justify the police entry. State v. Phillips<\/a>, 2009 WI App 179, 322 Wis. 2d 576, 778 N.W.2d 157 (2009):<\/p>\n

P11 We need not delve into the appropriateness of the officers’ determination to conduct a knock and talk or whether a knock and talk creates an exigency because in this case, a knock and talk was never actually accomplished. Instead, we conclude that Phillips, not the police, created the exigency that resulted in the warrantless search when, after seeing the police outside the residence, Phillips retreated into the residence and shut the door after the police ordered him to stop. Those actions created the exigency in this matter–namely, the risk that evidence would be destroyed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Comment: How convenient. What if he just did not want to talk to them? He was ordered to stop. What about the freedom to terminate an encounter that has no legal justification for a detention?<\/p>\n

Officers had reasonable suspicion of defendant driving in a high-crime area and he stopped and a person walked up and stuck his hand inside the car. It appeared to be a hand-to-hand drug sale. State v. Mello<\/a>, 200 N.C. App. 437, 684 S.E.2d 483 (2009).*<\/p>\n

Officers approaching defendant to talk to him in a high-crime area did not stop him before he fled, per Hodari D.<\/a> State v. Mewborn<\/a>, 200 N.C. App. 731, 684 S.E.2d 535 (2009).*<\/p>\n

Defendant agreed to a knock-and-talk entry after police said that they smell marijuana. The fact it was packaged tightly did not make the officers’ testimony inherently incredible. Circumstances also justified a protective sweep. State v. Stover<\/a>, 200 N.C. App. 506, 685 S.E.2d 127 (2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3509","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3509","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3509"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3509\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3509"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3509"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3509"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}