Two guys standing at a car talking to the occupants was not reasonable suspicion. \u201cThe fact that Mr. Dell and his companion were standing on either side of the parked car, looking into the windows in a back-and-forth manner is not enough to give Officer Tafisi reasonable suspicion that they were engaged in criminal activity.\u201d United States v. Dell, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27426 (D. Utah March 15, 2011).*<\/p>\n
A knock-and-talk led to officers gaining access to a locked basement to the house where a grow operation was found. This was all by consent. United States v. Greene, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27219 (E.D. Tenn. February 16, 2011).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was validly in custody in the back of a police car, and the officer went back to talk to him. \u201cThe Court finds that the statement, \u2018What you\u2019re looking for is lying on the front seat of the vehicle,\u2019 to be effective consent to search the vehicle. \u2018The standard for measuring the scope of the suspect\u2019s consent is objective reasonableness. Recitation of magic words is unnecessary; the key inquiry focuses on what the typical person would have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect.\u2019 United States v. Stewart, 93 F.3d 189, 192 (5th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted).\u201d United States v. Olivarria, 781 F. Supp. 2d 387 (N.D. Miss. 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading