A knock-and-talk that included three armed SWAT officers was inherently coercive. Defendant opened the door, saw them, and stepped back. The officers came in. If that was implied consent, it was coerced by the nature of the knock-and-talk. United States v. Serabia-Ferrel, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92040 (D. Minn. July 8, 2011), adopted 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92123 (D. Minn. August 17, 2011).<\/p>\n
Officers making a controlled delivery in Florida from a stop in Texas had exigent circumstances for an entry because of the possibility of destruction of evidence. There was also a question of consent found by the district court as an alternative ground that defendant failed to appeal. United States v. Gutierrez<\/a>, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17088 (11th Cir. August 16, 2011) (unpublished):<\/p>\n … Given the agents’ fear of counter-surveillance and their inability to view the truck or the goings-on in the house, their concern that Garcia Gutierrez or his co-conspirators inside the house could be in the process of destroying the narcotics evidence was an objectively reasonable one. Because the agents had both probable cause and exigent circumstances, the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress either the physical evidence discovered in the house or the statements that Garcia Gutierrez made to law enforcement.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Whether a TSA screening search was a part of an independent police investigation or TSA acting on its own apparently surprised the parties trying to narrow the issues, and further record development is necessary. United States v. Rosales, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91635 (D. Minn. August 16, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading