The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero here with blue to go Law Enforcement Training. I'm in Martin County, Florida teaching advanced search and seizure having a great time out here. And the question I got was, Can officers lie during a knock and talk? And the answer is, yes, certainly officers are not, you know, required to share all their inner secrets about an investigation with an occupant. So that's not a problem. You know, courts have upheld, you know, deception during investigations for centuries. But I want to transition to another related question. And that is, Can officers lie, to get into a home to, you know, see evidence and so forth. And the general rule for known officers, these are, you know, these are not undercover officers. These are known officers, that the documents know that they're dealing with the police. The general rule is that officers should not lie about their primary purpose about coming into the home. Let me give you some examples. And an infamous case, officers told the occupants that there was a bomb planted somewhere in the building, right? That's, that's they got a bomb threat, and they want to look for it. What the cops were really after was plain view evidence of drugs. Well, they get into the apartment to look for the bomb, they find no drug evidence, and we go from there. The court easily suppress that evidence, no rational person would say no to the police. After hearing that there's a bomb somewhere in the building. Let me give another example. Officers were investigating disability fraud. The occupant was suspected of being highly mobile, and he's lying about his disability and so forth. They wanted to catch them on camera inside his home moving around with no issues. They told him that he was the victim of identity theft. This was a lie, he there was no evidence of him being the victim of an ID theft. Based off this, though, they won't take a report, the occupant invites him in, and they secretly record him moving around and so forth and use that against him in his disability disability fraud case, that was suppressed, because the primary purpose was a lie, that we're not there for fraud. Compare that to these two cases. cops told the suspect that they were following up on a two year old burglary that he reported. Okay, so the he was the victim of the Burgh. But that was a lie. The case was closed, there was no leads, and so forth. What they were really after was child porn evidence. They want to see if there's something in plain view. So they told him this and they wanted to talk to him further inside the home. So the occupant of Vida men, they're acting like they're taking more information about stuff that was stolen, all the while they're looking around the home looking for the, you know, plain view evidence that was suppressed, the primary purpose was a lie, there was no investigation. But compare it to this case, officers were investigating a burglary. And the occupant was the target. They were hoping to get into the home to see if there was plain view evidence of the property stolen. Now, when they went to his house, they said, Look, we're rescuing a Burg. And he asked him I suspect and the cops lied and says, No, you're not. Okay. He says, Come on in. And while they're taking the report, and so forth, and asking him questions, they see plain view evidence that was upheld as constitutional, because the primary purpose was not a lie. They were there for the burglary. But the secondary purpose, of course, was also to see if they saw plain view evidence. So this is just about telling somebody why you're there. Remember, though, is if you do not, if you remain silent about why you're there, and you're like,