Knock and Talks : Obtaining Consent to Search

Similar documents
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 17, 2005

State Constitutional Law - New Mexico Rejects Apparent Authority to Consent as a Valid Basis for Warrantless Searches: State v.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO v. : T.C. NO. 09 CR 3580

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

DELMAR POLICE DEPARTMENT

Warrantless Searches. Objectives. Two Types of Warrantless Searches. Review the legal rules Discuss emerging issues Evaluate fact patterns

NO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA BRIEF FOR PETITIONER

.3 Before being presented to a judge, all applications for search warrants are to be reviewed by the State's Attorney s Office for approval.

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION

MOTION TO SUPPRESS. 1. Approximately 78 grams of marijuana seized from the co-defendants vehicle on

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 0:11-cr WJZ-1. versus

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

STATE OF OHIO ) CASE NO: CR A ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE JOHN P. O DONNELL ) vs. ) ) RAFAEL LABOY ) JOURNAL ENTRY ) Defendant.

KEITH I. GLENN OPINION BY v. Record Number JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE January 11, 2008 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

No. 51,450-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * *

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

2018 PA Super 201 : : : : : : : : :

MOTION AND MEMORANDUM. Florida/Criminal Law And Procedure/Search And Seizure/ Warrantless Search Of House Sweep. FILE: August 18, 1999

State of Wisconsin: Circuit Court: Milwaukee County: v. Case No. 2008CF000567

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

Chapter 10 WHERE THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE DOES NOT APPLY

Amanda Levine 1. To the reader:

TEXARKANA, TEXAS POLICE DEPARTMENT GENERAL ORDERS MANUAL. TPCA Best Practices Recognition Program Reference Searches Without a Warrant

NH DIVISION OF LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT AND LICENSING ADMINISTRATION & OPERATIONS MANUAL

Supreme Court of Louisiana

KAUPP v. TEXAS. on petition for writ of certiorari to the court of appeals of texas, fourteenth district

United States Supreme Court Term: Cases Affecting Criminal Law and Procedure

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE RECOMMENDED DECISION RE: MOTION TO SUPPRESS (ECF NO. 19)

From the Attorneys at the Legacy Counsel James Publishing

STATE V. GANT: DEPARTING FROM THE BRIGHT-LINE BELTON RULE IN AUTOMOBILE SEARCHES INCIDENT TO ARREST

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT. Policy and Procedure General Order: 1.06 Order Title: Strip and Body Cavity Searches

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DAVID LIVINGSTON. Argued: January 12, 2006 Opinion Issued: April 25, 2006

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Subject FIELD INTERVIEWS, INVESTIGATIVE STOPS/DETENTIONS, WEAPONS PAT-DOWNS & SEARCHES. DRAFT 7 April By Order of the Police Commissioner

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 179

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,025 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, KYLE MCCOOL, Appellant.

This General Order contains the following numbered sections:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO v. : T.C. NO. 08CR1122

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence

COVINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE

Traffic Stop Scenario Jeff Welty October 2016

2018 PA Super 183 : : : : : : : : :

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : v. : No EDA 2016 : NAIM NEWSOME :

v. COURT USE ONLY Defendant: ***** Case Number: **** Attorneys for Defendant:

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 115,799 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,

CHAPTER 3 SECTION VI 10/01/16 Vehicle Searches

RECENT THIRD CIRCUIT AND SUPREME COURT CASES

There Is No Place Like Home: The Supreme Court s Refusal to Allow Searches of the Home Based on Disputed Consent in Georgia v.

GENERAL ORDER OAK BROOK POLICE DEPARTMENT OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS

- WHAT CAN THE POLICE SEARCH YOUR HOME?

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County. Cause No.

2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

FINAL ORDER REVERSING TRIAL COURT. The State appeals from an order granting Appellee Razzano s pretrial motion to suppress.

Chief of Police: Review Date: July 1

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division IV Opinion by JUDGE GRAHAM Gabriel and Plank*, JJ., concur. Announced October 27, 2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2012

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Rule 318D - STRIP SEARCH, VISUAL BODY CAVITY SEARCH, AND BODY CAVITY SEARCH PROCEDURES

Public Copy CASPER POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. Investigative Procedure: Search & Seizure. 4 - Operations 03C -

OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF ST. MARY'S COUNTY, MD

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs July 10, 2007

CASE NO. 1D Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender and Glenna Joyce Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case Number BC v. Honorable David M.

I. Introduction. fact that most people carry a cell phone, there has been relatively little litigation deciding

POCOLA POLICE DEPARTMENT

IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff, : Case No. 12 CR 110

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 24, 2007 Session

Supreme Court of Louisiana

THE LAW PROFESSOR CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ESSAY SERIES ESSAY QUESTION

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE JANUARY SESSION, 1998

MINNESOTA V. DICKERSON United States Supreme Court 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993)

: No. CR : OPINION AND ORDER. driving under the influence (DUI) and summary offenses. Defendant s formal court

ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

2018 VT 100. No On Appeal from v. Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Criminal Division. Walker P. Edelman June Term, 2018

THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE

POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984 (PACE) CODE B

MINNESOTA v. DICKERSON 113 S.Ct (1993) United States Supreme Court

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs April 12, 2005

It s In the Bag: Voluntariness, Scope, and the Authority to Grant Consent - United States v. Harris

Warrantless Search Problems and Answers

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Virginia Commonwealth University Police Department

23 Motions To Suppress Tangible Evidence

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 7 November 2017

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs July 19, 2006

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 17 July 2012

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 20 September 2016

Transcription:

Knock and Talks : Obtaining Consent to Search Prepared by: Toni Smith, Assistant City Attorney Revised January 2010

Knock and Talk Procedures Knock and talk : A tactic used by law enforcement which consists of knocking on a suspect s door to engage in conversation regarding suspected criminal activity occurring in the suspect s residence, and then seeking the resident s consent to search. United States v. Miller, 933 F.Supp. 501 (1996). I. Consent Exception to the Warrant Requirement It is well settled under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments that a search conducted without a warrant issued upon probable cause is per se unreasonable subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions. It is equally well settled that one of the specifically established exceptions to the requirements of both a warrant and probable cause is a search that is conducted pursuant to consent. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 222 (1973). See also N.C.G.S. Section 15A-221(a). II. Knock and Talk Procedure Generally Upheld Defendant s girlfriend informed police that the defendant possessed drugs at his residence. She told the police that the drugs were located in a suitcase and a trunk in a bedroom that the two shared. Officers, concluding that they lacked probable cause to obtain a search warrant, decided to try a consent search - knock and talk. Two officers, dressed in plainclothes, went to the door of the defendant s house. Three additional officers and a canine also went to the defendant s home, but remained in a van outside. A resident (not the girlfriend or defendant) allowed the officers to enter. The resident gave the officers consent to search his bedroom and the common areas of the home. The other officers and the canine then entered to conduct the search. No drugs were found in these areas. The defendant s girlfriend then allowed the officers to search the bedroom that she shared with the defendant. In the bedroom, the canine alerted, indicating that drugs were in a suitcase and a trunk; a bag of marijuana was also found in the closet. The Court of Appeals had affirmed the trial court s ruling that the search was invalid because the officers entered the house without a search warrant in an effort to circumvent the Fourth Amendment (apparently ignoring the issue of consent). The North Carolina Supreme Court found the search not to be patently invalid but remanded the case to superior court to determine the voluntariness of the

consent given to the officers. The court also noted that the officers subjective intent in using the knock and talk procedure was irrelevant. The critical issue is the validity of the consent. State v. Smith, 346 N.C. 794 (1997) reversing 123 N.C. App. 162 (1996). III. Who May Give Consent A. General rule Generally, officers must obtain consent to search from a person who has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the item to be searched. B. Shared expectations of privacy Sometimes, two or more people - for example, spouses or roommates - share a reasonable expectation of privacy in the same place. In such a situation, either may provide valid consent in the absence of the other, or when both parties are present and neither voices an objection. However, if more than one person with an expectation of privacy in the area to be searched is present and one objects, then the area cannot be searched without a search warrant or exigent circumstances. C. Spouses Either spouse may consent to a search of property that they share unless both spouses are present at the time of the search and one voices an objection. In any event, one spouse may not consent to the search of a place where the other spouse clearly has exclusive private interests. D. Roommates Same as spouses. E. Parents and children Generally, a parent has authority to consent to a search of a child s room (although this authority is less likely if the child is not a minor) unless the child has established exclusive use and access to his or her room that would negate a parent s authority to consent to a search there. Parents may not have the authority to consent to a search of personal possessions if the child has exclusive access and use of those items. Generally, a minor child cannot consent to a search of his or her parents home. F. Landlords and tenants Only a tenant, not an owner, may consent to a search of the tenant s place until the tenant permanently leaves or otherwise loses his or her privacy interest in the premises (note that simply failing to pay rent or the expiration of a lease does not automatically mean that the tenant has lost his or her privacy interest in the premises. Generally, this would only occur after the tenant has lawfully been removed from the premises, for

example, through a summary ejectment/eviction.) Officers may enter an owner s property, despite the owner s objections, if the tenant in lawful possession consents. G. Guests in a home An overnight guest in another s home has a legitimate expectation of privacy despite the fact that he or she does not have the authority to determine who may or may not enter the household. The permanent resident of the premises may consent to a search anywhere within his or her own home, except for the guest s bedroom and the guest s personal belongings. N.C.G.S. Section 15A-222. Farb, Robert. Arrest, Search and Investigation in North Carolina. Third Edition, pgs. 79-80, Institute of Government (2003). See Georgia v. Randolph, (2006, US) 164 L. Ed. 2d 208, 126 S. Ct. 1515. IV. Content of a Valid Consent A. Form of Consent North Carolina law requires that consent be given in the form of a statement. That statement may be made in writing, orally or by other means, as long as it communicates its meaning clearly. However, while an oral statement or a gesture may be sufficient, it is preferable to obtain written consent as this helps to prove the validity of the consent if later challenged. N.C.G.S. Section 15A-221(b). Compare U.S. v. Miller, 933 F.Supp. 501 (1996) and State v. Graham, 149 N.C. App. 215 (2002). B. Voluntariness A court examines all the circumstances surrounding the giving of consent to search when it decides whether the consent was in fact voluntary or was obtained by duress or coercion, express or implied. There is no single controlling criterion, rather the court will look at the totality of the circumstances including, but not limited to: 1. Time of day 2. Number of officers 3. Wearing of uniforms 4. Visibility, particularly brandishing of weapons 5. Actual or threatened use of force 6. Demeanor of officers including the use of conversational v. authoritative tone; requests v. commands 7. Repeated questioning and requests for consent 8. Prolonged nature of the encounter 9. Whether a seizure occurred

10. Whether person was advised of right to refuse consent 11. Personal characteristics of consenting party such as age, education, intelligence, prior contact with authorities, physical condition See U.S. v. Drayton, 122 S. Ct. 2105 (2002); Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973); United States v. Miller, 933 F.Supp. 501 (1996). See also N.C.G.S. Section 15A-221(b). V. Scope of Search The scope of a consent search is governed by the terms of the consent given to the officers. Note that general consent to search a person does not extend to a strip search of the person because, our Court of Appeals has reasoned, a reasonable person would not expect their general consent to entail such an intrusive inspection. A strip search of a person will require consent specific enough that a reasonable person would have understood that an inspection of his or her genitals was intended, or the articulation of probable cause. Consent may withdraw at anytime or limited in any way. N.C.G.S. Section 15A-223(a). Farb, Robert. Arrest, Search and Investigation in North Carolina. Third Edition, pgs. 81-82, Institute of Government (2003). See also State v. Stone, 179 N.C. App. 297 (2006). Compare State v. Neal, 190 N.C. App. 453 (2008). VI. Receipt of Items Seized Officers must make a list of items seized pursuant to a consent search and deliver a copy of the receipt to the person who consented to the search and, if known, to the owner of the place searched. N.C.G.S. Section 15A-223(b). See generally AOC Form CR-206.