\u201cConsidering the totality of the circumstances, and for whatever reason the officers had for going to Defendant’s residence, the Court concludes that the knock and talk procedure used here did not give rise to a constructive entry. As discussed above, the hallmarks of a constructive entry are drawn weapons, raised voices, coercive demands, or many officers in plain sight. Grayer, 232 F. App’x at 450. None of these tactics were used here. Based on the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing, none of the officers ever drew their weapons or raised their voices. Moreover, the Court concludes that no officer made any coercive demands of Defendant.\u201d United States v. Taylor, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115008 (E.D. Ky. July 1, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThat bar is low: a warrant affidavit needs to show only a \u2018modicum of evidence, however slight, between the criminal activity at issue and the place to be searched.\u2019 United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 497 (6th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). Here, the affidavit provided the following details: \u2026 This suffices for good faith.\u201d United States v. Woodall, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 15936 (6th Cir. June 28, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The evidence supports that defendant consented to the search of his cell phone. United States v. White, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 15948 (11th Cir. July 1, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cConsidering the totality of the circumstances, and for whatever reason the officers had for going to Defendant’s residence, the Court concludes that the knock and talk procedure used here did not give rise to a constructive entry. As discussed above, … Continue reading