State v. Khounvichai

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that consent to enter was valid where the officers did not inform the occupant of his right to refuse entry because the sole purpose of entry was to question the occupant about a crime under investigation, as opposed to searching for contraband or evidence of a crime
• holding Ferrier warning not required when seeking entry to home to question resident
• holding Ferrier warning not required when seeking entry to home to question resident
• discussing the plain view exception to the warrant requirement when applied to article I, section 7, without referencing inadvertent discovery
• stating, “[w]e . . . reiterate that [Ferrier] warnings are required only when police officers seek entry to conduct a consensual search for contraband or evidence of a crime”
• stating, \[w]e ... reiterate that [ Ferrier ] warnings are required only when police officers seek entry to conduct a consensual search for contraband or evidence of a crime\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).