Defendant\u2019s knock-and-talk led to a consent search. \u201cCourts consider six primary factors to determine whether consent to a search is knowing and voluntary: (1) the voluntariness of the defendant’s custodial status; (2) presence of coercive police procedures; (3) the extent and level of the defendant’s cooperation with the police; (4) the defendant’s awareness of his right to refuse consent; (5) the defendant’s education and intelligence; and (6) the defendant’s belief that no incriminating evidence will be found.\u201d On the totality, the search was by consent. However, a post-Miranda statement is suppressed. United States v. Sanchez-Ceja, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4963 (N.D.Tex. Jan. 11, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mercedes-Benz is a private actor for \u00a7 1983 purposes. Moskovits v. Mercedes-Benz United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4429 (S.D.Fla. Jan. 10, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The scope of the search warrant was properly limited to the probable cause showing. United States v. Lonich, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 619 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s knock-and-talk led to a consent search. \u201cCourts consider six primary factors to determine whether consent to a search is knowing and voluntary: (1) the voluntariness of the defendant’s custodial status; (2) presence of coercive police procedures; (3) the extent … Continue reading