Was the investigatory detention and subsequent search legal?

Question

In Indianapolis, police suspected that a man inside a motel room was making methamphetamine in the bathroom. The decided to conduct a "knock and talk" whereby they get the suspect to open the door and see if he will reveal any incriminating information or see if they can see in plain view any obvious contraband. The suspect opened the motel door in response to the officers' knock. There were six uniformed and armed officers present. They asked if the suspect would be willing to step outside the door and talk to them. When he refused and tried to close the door, one officer placed his foot inside the door preventing the suspect from closing it. As the suspect stood inside the open doorway, police asked to come in and sit down and talk, but the suspect refused. They told the suspect, "hey, if you have nothing to hide, you'll let us in, because only guilty people don't want the police around." Reluctantly, Bob let the police in where, in order to sit on the bed, one officer moved Bob's jacket which revealed a firearm on the bed.
What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

ANSWER: Answers may vary: No, the initial detention and subsequent search were not legally justified. First the overbearing presence of the six uniformed – and presumably armed – officers conducting a "knock and talk" may have intimidated Bob to close the door in their faces. Second, the officer sticking his foot into the door was an improper method to keep the conversation going. Third, the apparent consent Bob granted the officers was a mere submission to authority as officers cajoled Bob into changing his mind from his initial refusal to let the officers inside. Last, since the initial entry was illegal so, too, the subsequent search which the moving of the jacket constituted.