The court concluded that “a citizen’s encounter, including a knock and talk, is not regarded as a search or seizure,” id. at 526 but rather, it is “a purely consensual encounter, which officers may initiate without any objective level of suspicion.” Id. at 527 (quoting Hardin v. State, 18 So.3d 1246, 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)). The court also found that absent a “no trespassing” sign or similar warning that the fence and gate were intended to keep people out, the officers may enter onto property without violating the Fourth Amendment. Id.; see also Bennett v. City of Eastpointe, 410 F.3d 810, 821 (6th Cir.2005) (“A purely consensual encounter between a police officer and a citizen does not implicate the Fourth Amendment.”); Murphy v. State, 898 So.2d 1031, 1032 n. 4 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>). In order to initiate a “knock and talk,”
holding that executing officers reasonably relied on judges determination that there was probable cause to search motel room even though search warrant affidavit failed tp mention a connection between motel room and criminal activity recognizing that a knock and talk conducted at murphys motel room is a procedure used by law enforcement as an investigative tool where there is no need for probable cause or a warrant holding searches conducted without a warrant based on probable cause are presumptively unreasonable holding that executing officers reasonably relied on judges determination that there was probable cause to search motel room for evidence of drug activity even though search warrant affidavit failed to mention a connection between motel room and criminal activity holding that executing officers reasonably relied on judges determination that there was probable cause to search motel room even though search warrant affidavit failed to mention a connection between motel room and criminal activity