(1)Where a defendant argued that officers exceeded their authority by approaching a shop building on her property for a knock and talk, the building was not within the curtilage of of her property because it was 100 yards from the house, the area was not enclosed and no evidence showed that the building was used to carry out “intimate activities of the house,” so the officers’ presence was lawful and the totality of the circumstances indicated that the defendant consented to a subsequent search of her property.
(2)Where a defendant challenged the admission of records of her purchases of pseudoephedrine, the trial court properly admitted the evidence under the relevant statute, and the records were not testimonial, so there was no confrontation clause violation.
Judgment is affirmed.
State v. Cady (MLW No. 66233/Case No. SD32636 – 17 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Lynch, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Lawrence County, Woods, J. (Daniel Neal McPherson, Jefferson City, for respondent) (Samuel E. Buffaloe, Columbia, for appellant).