In a "knock and talk " scenario, "even if an occupant chooses to open the door
and speak with the officers, the occupant need not allow the officers to enter the
premises and may refuse to answer any questions at any time. " Kentucky v. King,
563 U.S. 452, 470 (2011).

The first question presented is:

Whether a homeowner 's repeated denials of consent to search during a "knock
and talk " establishes exigent circumstances, specifically that the destruction of
evidence is imminent, to justify a warrantless entry and search of the home?

Assuming repeated denials of consent can constitute exigent circumstances,
the second question presented is:

Whether officers impermissibly create exigent circumstances when their
conduct during a "knock and talk " goes beyond what a private citizen would do,
including by continually seeking consent to search when the homeowner has
repeatedly denied consent and by stating that a search of the home is inevitable?

Whether a homeowner's repeated denials of consent to search during a 'knock and talk' establishes exigent circumstances, specifically that the destruction of evidence is imminent, to justify a warrantless entry and search of the home?