It Doesn't Matter What They Intended: The Need for Objective Permissibility Review of Police-Created Exigencies in "Knock and Talk" Investigations

By Abramoske, Bryan M. | Suffolk University Law Review, Summer 2008 | Go to article overview

It Doesn't Matter What They Intended: The Need for Objective Permissibility Review of Police-Created Exigencies in "Knock and Talk" Investigations


Abramoske, Bryan M., Suffolk University Law Review


"Because good proactive police work often creates exigencies, the legal issue is not simply whether the police created the exigency, but whether the police impermissibly created the exigency." (1)

I. INTRODUCTION

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by law enforcement personnel. (2) This right is protected in part by the requirement that law enforcement officers obtain search warrants prior to searching for and seizing evidence. (3) Searches conducted without a warrant are generally unreasonable. (4) This warrant requirement is not absolute, however, as the Supreme Court recognizes exceptions when certain exigent circumstances exist. (5) Exigent circumstances exist when there is no time to obtain a warrant and the police are compelled to act quickly. (6) Under such circumstances, searches may be reasonable despite the absence of a warrant. (7)

Though the Supreme Court has upheld warrantless searches where the exigency was related to police action, in each instance, the police conduct involved a response to an exigency, not proactive conduct that created one. (8) When police actions create exigent circumstances, as opposed to merely encountering them during an investigation, courts must determine whether the police action permissibly or impermissibly created the exigency. (9) While this permissibility inquiry may appear straightforward, courts differ on the standard to apply when weighing the propriety of police actions. (10) Circuit courts seem to agree that the basis for any review is the reasonableness of police action but disagree over the role the police officers' subjective intent should play. (11)

During these inquiries, courts focus on reasonableness because of the fear police will abuse their power. (12) One police tactic that courts have increasingly subjected to reasonableness review is the procedure known as "knock and talk." (13) The "knock and talk" procedure is a common and seemingly innocuous procedure that police use proactively, making the procedure vulnerable to potential abuse. (14) The "knock and talk" appears innocuous because courts do not generally consider its use a search or seizure, but rather an investigative tactic. (15) The potential for abuse arises when police attempt to gain access for consensual searches and instead provoke exigencies that normally validate a warrantless search. (16)

This Note explains the police procedure known as "knock and talk" and examines the validity of the procedure as an investigative tactic. (17) Part II.B discusses the use of the "knock and talk," focusing on the reasonableness of the procedure when it creates exigent circumstances. (18) Part II.B also provides examples of bad-faith uses of the "knock and talk" procedure. (19) Next, Part II.C examines police created exigencies and the different standards courts apply in determining whether police permissibly or impermissibly created the exigency. (20) This examination includes a discussion of both the objective reasonableness standard and the subjective bad-faith standard that courts apply. (21) Finally, Part III explains why a court's reasonableness and permissibility analyses should focus on objective criteria, rather than subjective intent, in determining Fourth Amendment compliance. (22) The analysis focuses on the objective factors relevant to "knock and talk" in judging the reasonableness of police actions. (23)

II. HISTORY

A. The "Knock and Talk" Procedure

The "knock and talk" involves a police officer knocking on the door of a residence, identifying himself, asking to talk to the occupant, and ultimately seeking information or consent to search the residence. (24) When done properly, a "knock and talk" does not constitute a search or seizure and therefore does not trigger the Fourth Amendment's constitutional protections. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

It Doesn't Matter What They Intended: The Need for Objective Permissibility Review of Police-Created Exigencies in "Knock and Talk" Investigations
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.