Illegal Search and seizures: the Knock and Talk

The Protection of the 4th Amendment

Georgia illegal drug searchThe 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Similarly, Article 1, Section 1 of the Georgia Constitution provides in Paragraph XIII, titled,  "Searches, seizures, and warrants."

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation particularly describing the place or places to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

But what is an unreasonable search and seizure? Courts have been debating this question for years, and the debate rages on in the city courts of Atlanta, the state courts of Georgia, and all across this country.

         
While there are no bright line answers to this question, it is important to know how Courts have attempted to define where your rights begin and where the Government's end. The following focuses more so on the ability of the government to search your home without consent or with consent obtained through intimidation or coercion in the absence of exigent circumstances, which could fill up another webpage by itself, as delineated by Georgia courts as well as the United States Supreme Court. Remember that each set of facts is unique, and a Court will look to the totality of the circumstances of your particular case in deciding whether your Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Our aim here is to give you a general understanding of your rights as you encounter police officers in your daily life at your home, especially uninvited knock and talks.

 The Knock and Talk


In Police parlance a "knock and talk" is an investigative technique in which one or more police officers approaches a private residence, home or apartment and knocks on the door. The Police then request consent from the owner to search the residence. The knock and talk is often performed when criminal activity is suspected, but there is not sufficient evidence to obtain a search warrant, the police do not believe that they can get a warrant or the police are too lazy to take the time to apply for a warrant. It is a common end-run around the protections of the 4th Amendment. 

The State bears the burden of proving that both the search and seizure of evidence were lawful. OCGA § 17-5-30(b). To justify a warrantless search on the grounds of consent, the State must prove the consent was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances. Pledger v. State, 257 Ga.App. 794, 800, 572 S.E.2d 348 (2002), citing Raulerson v. State, 268 Ga. 623, 625(2)(a), 491 S.E.2d 791 (1997), and Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 229, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). "[I]n order to eliminate any taint from an involuntary [search,] seizure or arrest, there must be proof both that the consent was voluntary and that it was not the product of [an] illegal detention." Pledger, supra. Whether consent is the product of free will or the preceding illegality must be answered on the facts of each case; no single fact is dispositive. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975).

In Pledger v. State, supra, Police went to the accused home as a result of getting a tip from an informant that alleged that there was marijuana in the home. Because the tipster was considered unreliable, the Police opted to perform a "knock and talk" to attempt to obtain consent voluntarily from the suspect knowing that they would not be able to obtain a warrant. When they went to Pledger's home, she was not home but a young visitor answered the door and they smelled marijuana. The police took the visitors of the home into custody while they waited inside and obtained a warrant. When Pledger arrived home she was met by four Officers inside her home and she consented to a search as the warrant had not arrived. The Court held that the search was not with valid consent because it was obtained as a result of the illegal entry of the home. 

Whether consent is voluntary is crucial determination by the Trial Court. In Pollard v. State, 265 Ga. App. 749 (2004), the Georgia Court of Appeals laid out the factors to be considered to determine whether consent is voluntary under a totality of the circumstances analysis:

1) the age of the accused,
2) his education,
3) his intelligence,
4) the length of detention,
5) whether the accused was advised of his constitutional rights, 
6) the prolonged nature of questioning, 
7) the use of physical punishment, and 
8) the psychological impact of all these factors on the accused.

Generally speaking, a mere knock by the police on someone's door and request to enter the premises usually constitutes a first-tier encounter, a second-tier encounter occurs if under the totality of the circumstances a reasonable person would have felt compelled to open the door and let the police enter. This is important because if the knock becomes a second tier encounter without articulable suspicion, any subsequent consent would be tainted by the illegal detention resulting from escalating the first tier encounter to a second tier encounter.  Black v. State, 281 Ga.App. 40, 44(1), 635 S.E.2d 568 (2006).

For more information on First and Second Tier Encounters click here. 

Warrantless Searches

warrantless searches in georgia drug possessionIt is well established "that searches conducted outside the judicial process[or warrantless searches], without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions." Davis v. State, 262 Ga. 578, 422 S.E.2d 546 (1992) citing Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 357 (88 SC 507, 19 LE2d 576) (1967); see also Gary v. State, 262 Ga. 573 (422 SE2d 426) (1992). The only exceptions would exigent circumstances like risk of injury or death or destruction of evidence. State v. David, 269 Ga. 533,501 S.E.2d 494 (1998).

In Clare v. State 135 Ga. App. 281 (1975), the Georgia Court of Appeals held that, "The odor of marijuana smoke is not, in and of itself, sufficient to afford probable cause for a warrantless search, but it may be considered and may be a part of a totality of circumstances sufficient to validate one, [citation], wherein the court held that while "odors alone do not authorize a search without warrant," a "sufficiently distinctive" odor recognized by one "qualified to know the odor" may form a proper basis for the issuance of a search warrant. In the absence of any other circumstances tending to show the presence of marijuana, the officer's statements reveal only a suspicion that drugs were being used insufficient to constitute probable cause. Even after an arrest, police may only search your immediate vicinity and not your entire home.  In Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969), during an arrest that occurred in the Defendant's home the Court approved a search of the accused's person and his immediate vicinity but not of his entire home 

To summarize, the protections of the Fourth Amendment are triggered in some degree every single time you interact with a police officer. The longer that you are in the presence of a police officer answering questions, the more likely your encounter has escalated beyond first tier encounter. You don't have to answer the door, answer questions and have a right to ask to be left alone.  Remember, it is best to assert your right in a polite and respectful manner. Many officer will push the boundaries up to the point you give them a reason to back off. We hope this information has been helpful. Should you have any further questions regarding your Fourth Amendment rights, don't hesitate to call (404) 333-0706 or email firm@georgialawyer.com. 




Bookmark and Share



                                                       

is a trial lawyer with 18 years of courtroom experience. He is one of only 6 Atlanta DUI lawyers with both an AV Preeminent rating from Martindale.com and a 10.0/10.0 Superb rating on Avvo.com. He has over 100 "not guilty" verdicts under his belt and has forged indispensable relationships with police, judges and prosecutors all over the State of Georgia in order to benefit his clients' defense.
George Creal Attorney Profile+

The National Trial Lawyers


READ SUCCESS STORIES ON FACEBOOK FAN PAGE BELOW

 
George C. Creal Jr., P.C., Top Atlanta DUI Law Firm

No legal advice should be obtained from the web site alone. George C. Creal, Jr., P.C. is Georgia Professional Corporation authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia only and all information contained in this web site is intended for use for DUI arrests occurring in the State of Georgia. Individuals with DUI from outside the State of Georgia should contact a licensed attorney in the state of occurrence of their DUI. Copyright © 2014 George C. Creal, Jr. P.C.
Protected by Copyscape Online Plagiarism Checker


 | DUI Alpharetta   |   DUI Athens   |   DUI Atlanta   | DUI Bibb County   


   DUI Conyers    |     DUI Coweta County   |   DUI Decatur   |   DUI DeKalb County 

 DUI Doraville   |   DUI Douglas   |   DUI Douglasville   |   DUI Duluth 






  DUI Smyrna   |   DUI Stockbridge   |   DUI Union City

Atlanta Office Address: 480 John Wesley Dobbs Ave.,  N.E., Unit 190, Atlanta, GA 30312 | Phone: (404) 333-0706

In the words of Mark Twain, "Continuous Improvement is better than delayed perfection." If you find errors or deadlinks please email us at firm@georgialawyer.com, we strive to do better.