A police encounter amounting to a “knock and talk” does not rise to the level of investigative detention requiring suspicion of criminal activity. The lower court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence discovered after officers knocked on her motel room during daylight hours, asked her for identification, inquired as to her parole status, and requested permission to search the room. The appellate court reversed, finding that a suspicionless “knock and talk” was not unconstitutional. Because the trial court had granted the motion on the ground that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed, the appellate court remanded for a determination of whether the encounter was consensual under the totality of the circumstances, i.e., whether the officers’ conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that she was not free to leave or refuse consent.