The court finds that the entry on a knock-and-talk was by consent, discounting the consenter’s version of events. The consenter was told she could refuse and said \u201cI don\u2019t know, I don\u2019t know,\u201d then later consented. \u201cMs. Handley’s initial reluctance to consent negates a coercive atmosphere.\u201d The consent was valid. United States v. Turner, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14551 (W.D. Mo. January 19, 2012).*<\/p>\n
Voluntariness of consent is reviewed for clear error, and this is supported by the evidence. The defendants also exchanged incriminating comments to each other in the jail elevator that were not the product of interrogation. United States v. Martinez<\/a>, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2423 (3d Cir. February 7, 2012) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n Officers had reasonable suspicion from defendant\u2019s movements between his car and a known \u201cstash pad\u201d under surveillance. United States v. Reyes, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14980 (S.D. N.Y. February 1, 2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading