Officers received an \u201canonymous\u201d tip by e-mail of drugs being sold out of defendant\u2019s house, so officers went there for a knock-and-talk. His wife consented. No level of suspicion is required for a knock-and-talk. United States v. Johnson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97577 (W.D. Tenn. August 30, 2011), R&R 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97576 (W.D. Tenn. July 21, 2011):<\/p>\n
[I]t is well-established that \u201c[a]n officer may initiate a knock and talk without any objective level of suspicion.\u201d Pritchard v. Hamilton Twp. Bd. of Trs.<\/a>, No. 09-4594, 424 Fed. Appx. 492 (6th Cir. May 25, 2011) (citing United States v. Thomas, 430 F.3d 274, 277 (6th Cir. 2005)). Any resulting discussion with a suspect does not implicate the Fourth Amendment. Thomas, 430 F.3d at 277 (citing cases).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Petitioner\u2019s overbreadth of search warrant claim in a \u00a7 2255 would not have been reversed on appeal even if it had been raised. Baker v. United States, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97493 (E.D. Va. August 29, 2011).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s wife found child pornography on their computer and she signed a consent to search the house for the computer. That included consent to seize it. Consent was not limited after she talked to defendant before the police came in the house. United States v. Powers, 432 Fed. Appx. 16 (2d Cir. 2011) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading