Because defendant’s house was so far from the road that reasonable suspicion was required, but officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a knock and talk and enter his property which was a long way from the roadway. United States v. Ardoin, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109806 (M.D. La. October 14, 2010):<\/p>\n
Though the roadway is not a curtilage, and is therefore not subject to the heightened standards applicable to homes, the officers still must have had a reasonable suspicion upon which to approach Ardoin’s home to conduct a \u201cknock and talk\u201d investigation. If the officer has a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the officer may approach an individual’s home, knock on the door, and talk to the home\u2019s occupants, and the Fourth Amendment is not implicated because no search or seizure occurs. United States v. Walters<\/a>, 529 F. Supp. 2d 628, 636 (E.D. Tex. 2007). Reasonable suspicion sufficient to validate a \u201cknock and talk\u201d investigation may be based upon complaints or tips that an individual’s home is being used for drug activity. Jones<\/a>, 239 F.3d at 718, 720.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(Note: Cases seldom hold that reasonable suspicion is required for a knock and talk. Here, an entry onto the curtilage was also an issue, so it was disposed of with reasonable suspicion.)<\/p>\n
On the totality of circumstances, defendant\u2019s PO had reasonable suspicion of a parole violation and that evidence would be found at his house, so that justified the parole search. United States v. Chatman, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109881 (E.D. Pa. October 15, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading