United States v. Anthony Bearden

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment by driving through an open gate with a “No Trespassing” sign on their way to entering a home’s curtilage in order to conduct a knock-and-talk
• concluding that the district court did not err in finding the defendant voluntarily consented to a search even though he was handcuffed in a secluded area and had not yet been read Miranda warnings, because other circumstances supported the court’s finding
• rejecting defendant’s argument that officers had passed a No Trespassing sign because the district court’s contrary factual finding was not clearly erroneous
• upholding “knock and talk” where officers entered property through an open driveway gate marked with “No Trespassing” signs
• noting the “well-established” rule that one panel of this court cannot overrule the decision of another panel
• upholding knock- and-talk where officers entered property through open driveway gate despite “No Trespassing” signs

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).