in his backpack. ¶ 6 Hummons moved to suppress this evidence, arguing that it was obtained as the result of an illegal detention. The trial court denied the motion, finding the officer’s encounter with Hummons consensual. Without addressing the consent issue, the court of appeals affirmed, concluding that even if Hummons had been illegally detained during the warrant cheek, the discovery of the arrest warrant constituted an intervening circumstance that dissipated the taint of any prior illegality. Hummons, 225 Ariz. at 257-58 ¶¶ 8-11, 236 P.3d at 1204-05. II. DISCUSSION A. Attenuation Doctrine ¶ 7 Law enforcement officers have wide latitude to approach people and engage them in consensual conversation. See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) (<HOLDING>). They are also free to request identification.
holding that the doorway of the home is a public place for purposes of the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment holding that an arrest made by an officer outside his jurisdiction does not violate the fourth amendment recognizing private damage action for fourth amendment violations by federal officers holding that a search incident to a lawful arrest does not violate the fourth amendment holding officers do not violate fourth amendment by approaching citizen in public place and asking permission to question