Officers came to defendant\u2019s home for a knock-and-talk, and he saw them and fled, and the USMJ credited that the officers could see him discard a drug container. The court finds this was hot pursuit. \u201cOf course, the Versailles police did not have the opportunity to \u2018talk\u2019 to Hardy, let alone \u2018knock\u2019 on his front door. The defendant contends that the ensuing chase crossed over his constitutionally-protected yard to arrive at the location of the drugs, approximately twenty-to-thirty feet away from where he was apprehended. … Whether the open yard is actually curtilage-protected under the Fourth Amendment is debatable, but Lyons’ pursuit and arrival at the location of the drugs was clearly lawful even if that portion of the yard is part of the curtilage.\u201d United States v. Hardy, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143414 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 23, 2019).* [This claimed welfare check sounds like it was based on near probable cause, but the officers chose a knock-and-talk instead.]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Officers came to defendant\u2019s home for a knock-and-talk, and he saw them and fled, and the USMJ credited that the officers could see him discard a drug container. The court finds this was hot pursuit. \u201cOf course, the Versailles police … Continue reading