The government did not carry its burden of proof of consent where the officers who gained entry by a knock-and-talk could not agree over when consent was given and what its scope was. United States v. Payton, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98058 (W.D. Tex. June 8, 2011).*<\/p>\n
The officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant, and the motion to suppress is granted. The defendant made the motion to suppress after the jury was empaneled, and the trial judge considered and granted it. Then a mistrial had to be declared, which the court finds manifest necessity for because of its late timing. United States v. Kirkley, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98668 (D. Kan. September 1, 2011).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was arrested fleeing from a building based on a radio call from another officer that a man fitting his description was heading for the door. Based on the collective knowledge doctrine, the arresting officers had probable cause, not just reasonable suspicion, and the search incident was valid. United States v. Fletcher, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98163 (D. Minn. August 15, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading