Defendant\u2019s disavowal of living there as the reason why he couldn\u2019t consent to an entry showed he had no standing. United States v. Howard, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67162 (E.D. Tenn. June 21, 2011), R&R 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69300 (E.D. Tenn. April 7, 2011).<\/p>\n
The stop was valid, and defendant consented. United States v. Orozco, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66574 (E.D. Mo. March 30, 2011).*<\/p>\n
The government\u2019s claim of exigent circumstances to enter to protect a 16 year old girl from allegedly being molested by defendant was misplaced because she was old enough to consent and apparently was. \u201cWhile the situation about which Littlefield read in the CAD Report was creepy, it was not scary. Unless the Court is prepared to say that consensual sex by a woman who can give consent places the woman in imminent danger of physical harm, the Court cannot say that there is an exigent circumstances when the age gap is so great.\u201d United States v. Christy, 785 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (D. N.M. 2011).*<\/p>\n
Police conducted a knock-and-talk after following footprints in the dew covered grass to defendant\u2019s house. He consented to an entry. United States v. Clay, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65657 (E.D. Tenn. April 11, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading