WA: Warning of right to refuse consent search only applies to knock-and-talk

Warning of a right to refuse a consent search is only required for knock-and-talk. This was an animal cruelty case, and officers had been there repeatedly to observe horses with consent. Finally, they got a warrant to enter the enclosure based on the prior observations. State v. Mercedes, 2025 Wash. LEXIS 142 (Mar. 6, 2025).

Defendant didn’t show defense counsel was ineffective for not challenging a search warrant for his mother’s property [for which he didn’t have standing and] for which there was probable cause. Ramirez v. State, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 103 (Mar. 7, 2025).*

The officer’s plain view observation of a baggie of drugs in defendant’s car’s cupholder was reasonable. United States v. Daniels, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40948 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2025).*

The affidavit for warrant showed probable cause for a four-year plan for murder for hire and stalking. United States v. Barnard, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40709 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2025),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39421 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 5, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Ineffective assistance, Knock and talk, Plain view, feel, smell, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.