{"id":3921,"date":"2010-06-06T13:04:49","date_gmt":"2010-03-05T05:59:30","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-03-05T05:59:30","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3921","title":{"rendered":"GA: Knock-and-talk consent to enter cannot be granted by mere visitor"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Knock-and-talk was conducted without determining who lived in the house and whether the person who answered the door could consent to entry. Consent by a visitor was invalid since he lacked common authority over the premises.  The plain view from inside the house after the illegal entry was unreasonable.  <a href=\"http:\/\/www.lexisone.com\/lx1\/caselaw\/freecaselaw?searchType=citation&amp;fclSearch=2010+Ga.+App.+LEXIS+184+&amp;action=FCLSearchCaseByCitation&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;format=CITE&amp;pageNumber=1&amp;sourceID=&amp;citation=2010+Ga.+App.+LEXIS+184+&amp;searchTerm=\">Hunt v. State<\/a>, 302 Ga. App. 578, 691 S.E.2d 368 (2010).<\/p>\n<p>Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in an AA meeting where the police arrested him for DUI.  The court of appeals faults the record for not showing whether he had a subjective expectation of privacy [, but that does not seem to be necessary on the facts in the opinion because there was none].  <a href=\"http:\/\/www.isc.idaho.gov\/opinions\/Ashworth,%20Larry%20Amd.pdf\">State v. Ashworth<\/a>, 2010 Ida. App. LEXIS 13 (March 3, 2010).*<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe trial court correctly concluded that the blood draw was administered in a medically acceptable manner without unreasonable force. The person that drew Wheeler&#8217;s blood was part of an ambulance crew and stated he was authorized to draw blood.\u201d <a href=\"http:\/\/www.isc.idaho.gov\/opinions\/wheeler%20opinion.pdf\">State v. Wheeler<\/a>, 2010 Ida. App. LEXIS 12 (February 26, 2010),* substituted opinion <a href=\"http:\/\/www.isc.idaho.gov\/opinions\/wheeler%20opinion%20substitute.pdf\">State v. Wheeler<\/a>, 2010 Ida. App. LEXIS 28 (April 9, 2010), reposted April 13.*<\/p>\n<p>Vehicle seizure for valid asset forfeiture was reasonable, as was the subsequent search. United States v. Carter, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18162 (W.D. Mo. January 27, 2010).*<\/p>\n<p>Search warrant for cell phone was based on probable cause. United States v. Borromeo, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18191 (D. Minn. January 4, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3921\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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-3921","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3921","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=3921"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3921\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3921"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3921"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3921"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}