Colt

People v. Colt

Good Law
118 Cal. App. 4th 1404·13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 852·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 815·2004 Daily Journal DAR 6355·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4641
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 27, 2004B167293California2,585 words

Opinion

Opinion

Yegan, J.

Paraphrasing our California Supreme Court, we hold that a police officer may seek an interview with a suspect at his home as long as such inquiry is courteously made and not accompanied by any assertion of a right to enter or secure answers. Federal jurisprudence describes this police tactic as “knock and talk.” In this situation, the encounter between the police and the person is consensual and Fourth Amendment protections are not implicated.

Robert Joseph Colt appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to possessing methamphetamine for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.) Probation was granted with a condition that he serve 240 days in the county jail. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5.) We disagree and affirm.

Facts

We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the order denying suppression, which is required by the familiar rule of appellate review. (E.g., People v. Weaver (2001) 26 Cal.4th 876, 924 [ 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 2 , 29 P.3d 103 ].) On the evening of September 18, 2002, narcotics task force agents advised Atascadero Police Sergeant Joseph Allen that appellant…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.