By Caitlin Barbas
The case of Carroll v. Carman has brought attention to the controversial issue of evidence collection in the United States. A common form of evidence collection, often referred to as “Knock and Talk,” involves the visit of one or more police officers to a private real estate holding, often a residency. The case, Carroll v. Carman, surrounds the controversy over which door police officers are required to approach upon their commencing of “Knock and Talk.” In order to comprehend the legality of this form of evidence collection, this essay will provide a brief explanation of a Knock and Talk, analyze previous court cases surround Knock and Talk, and examine the evidence of illegal entry and seizure in Carroll v. Carman.
Explanation
Knock and Talk is a common form of evidence collection, used by the police when they have not been granted a search warrant, but have high suspicion that illegal activities are occurring within the location or by a person at that location. The legality of this operation rests upon the consent of a homeowner to a police search, as long as the police request to search the premise was not conducted in an aggressive manner.1 It is necessary to consider this procedure in the context of the Fourth Amendment, which states, “The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”2
Previous Cases
In the case, The People of the State of Illinois v. David Kofron, Judge Haida stated, “that he agreed with the defense that “a ‘knock and talk’ is not walking around the house into the backyard into a private area’”3. This case centered on the seizure of persons, two defendants residing within the home, who were arrested and whose home was searched without proper authorization.
United States v. Jerez further examines search and seizures as the result of a “knock and talk.” The two officers conducting the procedure at a motel in Milwaukee knocked not only on the door of the motel room, at a late hour, but also on the window of the room, looking in enough to see the defendant lying in bed at the time.4 Persistent knocking on both the door and the window, and identification as a police officers prompted the eventual opening of the door by Carlos Solis, who was dressed only in his underwear at the time of the incident.5 What emerged as the key question of this case, and ultimate seizure of both persons and contraband, is whether the situation would have allowed any reasonable person to have denied the officers requests to both open the door and search the belongings of the suspects.
The case of Carroll v. Carman has brought attention to the controversial issue of evidence collection in the United States. A common form of evidence collection, often referred to as “Knock and Talk,” involves the visit of one or more police officers to a private real estate holding, often a residency. The case, Carroll v. Carman, surrounds the controversy over which door police officers are required to approach upon their commencing of “Knock and Talk.” In order to comprehend the legality of this form of evidence collection, this essay will provide a brief explanation of a Knock and Talk, analyze previous court cases surround Knock and Talk, and examine the evidence of illegal entry and seizure in Carroll v. Carman.
Explanation
Knock and Talk is a common form of evidence collection, used by the police when they have not been granted a search warrant, but have high suspicion that illegal activities are occurring within the location or by a person at that location. The legality of this operation rests upon the consent of a homeowner to a police search, as long as the police request to search the premise was not conducted in an aggressive manner.1 It is necessary to consider this procedure in the context of the Fourth Amendment, which states, “The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”2
Previous Cases
In the case, The People of the State of Illinois v. David Kofron, Judge Haida stated, “that he agreed with the defense that “a ‘knock and talk’ is not walking around the house into the backyard into a private area’”3. This case centered on the seizure of persons, two defendants residing within the home, who were arrested and whose home was searched without proper authorization.
United States v. Jerez further examines search and seizures as the result of a “knock and talk.” The two officers conducting the procedure at a motel in Milwaukee knocked not only on the door of the motel room, at a late hour, but also on the window of the room, looking in enough to see the defendant lying in bed at the time.4 Persistent knocking on both the door and the window, and identification as a police officers prompted the eventual opening of the door by Carlos Solis, who was dressed only in his underwear at the time of the incident.5 What emerged as the key question of this case, and ultimate seizure of both persons and contraband, is whether the situation would have allowed any reasonable person to have denied the officers requests to both open the door and search the belongings of the suspects.
Carroll v. Carman
In the case, Carroll v. Carman, there exist two focal areas on which the Carman family believe their constitutional rights were violated. The plaintiffs claim that while “Knock and Talk” does justify entrance to the property without a warrant, this privilege only extends to the same amount that a private citizen would have.6 They argue that Carroll act in a manner not justified by “Knock and Talk” as he entered the property via the backyard, passing the garage and making his way up steps and onto the deck, before reaching the sliding door connected to the kitchen. As it is customary for private citizens unacquainted with residents to approach solely the front door of a house, the plaintiffs argue that Carroll was only justified to this extent.7 While the action of approaching the backdoor may have been more convenient, “Knock and Talk” procedure should not be determined by expediency.8
The second point of contention is whether Carroll illegally seized Mr. Carman, as he grabbed his arm momentarily during the encounter between the two parties. While Mr. Carman was unarmed at the time, the police had been searching for Michael Zita and were reasonable in believing that Mr. Carman may have been reaching for a gun.9
The District Court initially sided with the defendant, Mr. Carroll on all accounts, however, this was appealed and the issue of unlawful entrance onto the property was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.10
Currently pending petition in the Supreme Court, the case of Carroll v. Carmen could be pivotal in changing the evidence collection procedures of the United Sates police forces. If the Supreme Court is does release an opinion on the matter, the conduct of these police tactics would be placed under clear constraints as a matter of where the police are allowed to enter the premises. A ruling siding with the District Court would provide more leeway to police officers conducting Knock and Talks. While the backyard of this house was visible from the side-street, a ruling affirming the rights of Carroll to enter the backyard could create an essential gray-area for legality of entering the yard of any home, even those not visible from the streets.
Conclusion
The legal issues concerning “Knock and Talk” have been ongoing and are likely to continue, even if the Supreme Court rules on Carroll v. Carmen. “Knock and Talk” procedures are often viewed on a case to case basis, as the laws surrounding the procedure are often seen as vague or inapplicable. Furthermore, public awareness of their rights during these procedures is limited, therefore, leading to an increased risk of search consent resulting out of fear or confusion. In recent cases, most notably in Orlando in March 2014, “Knock and Talks” have resulted in violence and fatalities, leading to public suspicion of the operation.11 In order to increase the proficiency of the “Knock and Talk” evidence collection procedure, defined laws and procedures must be clearly outlined and explained to both the public and the law enforcement officers.
References
In the case, Carroll v. Carman, there exist two focal areas on which the Carman family believe their constitutional rights were violated. The plaintiffs claim that while “Knock and Talk” does justify entrance to the property without a warrant, this privilege only extends to the same amount that a private citizen would have.6 They argue that Carroll act in a manner not justified by “Knock and Talk” as he entered the property via the backyard, passing the garage and making his way up steps and onto the deck, before reaching the sliding door connected to the kitchen. As it is customary for private citizens unacquainted with residents to approach solely the front door of a house, the plaintiffs argue that Carroll was only justified to this extent.7 While the action of approaching the backdoor may have been more convenient, “Knock and Talk” procedure should not be determined by expediency.8
The second point of contention is whether Carroll illegally seized Mr. Carman, as he grabbed his arm momentarily during the encounter between the two parties. While Mr. Carman was unarmed at the time, the police had been searching for Michael Zita and were reasonable in believing that Mr. Carman may have been reaching for a gun.9
The District Court initially sided with the defendant, Mr. Carroll on all accounts, however, this was appealed and the issue of unlawful entrance onto the property was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.10
Currently pending petition in the Supreme Court, the case of Carroll v. Carmen could be pivotal in changing the evidence collection procedures of the United Sates police forces. If the Supreme Court is does release an opinion on the matter, the conduct of these police tactics would be placed under clear constraints as a matter of where the police are allowed to enter the premises. A ruling siding with the District Court would provide more leeway to police officers conducting Knock and Talks. While the backyard of this house was visible from the side-street, a ruling affirming the rights of Carroll to enter the backyard could create an essential gray-area for legality of entering the yard of any home, even those not visible from the streets.
Conclusion
The legal issues concerning “Knock and Talk” have been ongoing and are likely to continue, even if the Supreme Court rules on Carroll v. Carmen. “Knock and Talk” procedures are often viewed on a case to case basis, as the laws surrounding the procedure are often seen as vague or inapplicable. Furthermore, public awareness of their rights during these procedures is limited, therefore, leading to an increased risk of search consent resulting out of fear or confusion. In recent cases, most notably in Orlando in March 2014, “Knock and Talks” have resulted in violence and fatalities, leading to public suspicion of the operation.11 In order to increase the proficiency of the “Knock and Talk” evidence collection procedure, defined laws and procedures must be clearly outlined and explained to both the public and the law enforcement officers.
References
Carman v. Carroll, 13-2371- Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2014
Pavuk, Amy. "Suit planned against Orlando, OPD for fatal shooting in 'knock-and-talk'." The Orlando
Sentinel. N.p., 11 Mar. 2014. Web. <http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-03-11/news/os- orlando-police-shooting-karvas-gamble-20140311_1_fatal-shooting-orlando-police-spokesman- staff-writer-susan-jacobson>.
People v. Kofron, 2014 IL App (5th) 130335.
"The Constitution of the United States," Amendment 4.
US v. Jerez, 108 F. 3d 684 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 1997.
Pavuk, Amy. "Suit planned against Orlando, OPD for fatal shooting in 'knock-and-talk'." The Orlando
Sentinel. N.p., 11 Mar. 2014. Web. <http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-03-11/news/os- orlando-police-shooting-karvas-gamble-20140311_1_fatal-shooting-orlando-police-spokesman- staff-writer-susan-jacobson>.
People v. Kofron, 2014 IL App (5th) 130335.
"The Constitution of the United States," Amendment 4.
US v. Jerez, 108 F. 3d 684 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 1997.
No comments:
Post a Comment