Officers came to defendant\u2019s house to do a knock and talk but used a ruse to get inside: They were looking for a third person with a child support warrant for him. The defendant let them in to check the ID of a second man inside, just to be sure he wasn\u2019t the guy. Once inside, they asked about cocaine and defendant voluntarily gave it up. The ruse wasn\u2019t invalid. United States v. Rose, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115805 (E.D. Ky. August 20, 2014).<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s frisk was not justified in its inception and went too far. No weapon was felt and the officer then lifted defendant\u2019s shirt and saw a baggie protruding slightly from his waistline. Lifting the shirt went beyond a weapons frisk that already failed to reveal a weapon. Consent to search was also involuntary. United States v. Ortiz, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115537 (N.D. Cal. August 19, 2014).*<\/p>\n
Massachusetts notes that \u201ctarget standing\u201d is still an open question there. The case before it didn\u2019t require the question be resolved. Commonwealth v. Vacher<\/a>, 469 Mass. 425 (August 19, 2014).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Officers came to defendant\u2019s house to do a knock and talk but used a ruse to get inside: They were looking for a third person with a child support warrant for him. The defendant let them in to check the … Continue reading