Posted: 1/12/2006 3:18:45 PM EDT
If they have enough evidence for a warrant then they should be good to go but knocking on peoples' doors for the purpose of looking for suspicious activity or trying to get verbal consent does seem like fine line when it comes to people's rights. Police rethinking 'knock and talk' technique
05:47 PM CST on Thursday, January 12, 2006
Donald Ray Hall testified that he had crack cocaine on his kitchen table and a gun nearby the day Dallas police arrived at his door.
But federal drugs and weapons charges against him were dropped – a judge threw out the evidence against him, saying officers had conducted an illegal search.
The case is one of several that have the Police Department rethinking how and when officers conduct so called "knock and talks," a popular police technique of investigating suspected drug activity without a warrant.
Police brass are considering requiring that knock and talks be audiotaped or videotaped to protect officers from allegations of improperly searching people's homes.
Officers may also be required to obtain a written consent for the search from the occupant of the residence.
"We think knock and talks are a very valuable tool," Dallas Police Chief David Kunkle said. "We also recognize that they have to be carefully managed, that they can be abused ... what constitutes a lawful voluntary search versus one that is coerced is a fine line that we don't want to cross."
The knock and talk technique involves knocking on the door of a home, usually a suspected drug house, and trying to talk the people inside into inviting them in to search without a warrant. Police can enter without a search warrant if they see illegal activity happening.
Police often use knock and talks when neighbors complain of drug activity, but officers don't have enough evidence for a search warrant. Knock and talks usually hold up in court unless a judge has some reason not to believe an officer's version of events.
Defense attorneys and legal experts said they knew of no major department currently requiring the taping of knock and talks.
"It makes a great deal of sense," said George Dix, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law and an expert in criminal law and procedure. "It's really admirable that they're concerned about it enough to think about it creatively."
The problem with knock and talks is that they are sort of a "he said, he said kind of situation," Mr. Dix said. An officer can say the suspect gave consent for a search when he did not, or can falsely claim that he saw illegal activity that gave him the legal justification to search the house.
Audio and video "would make a world of difference because then you'd know what happened," said Kenneth Blassingame, a Dallas defense attorney representing clients in two different cases who claim police conducted illegal searches using knock and talks.
"Somewhere between what the defendant and the police officer says normally is the truth," he said.
Police say they need to be aggressive in cutting crimes that link closely to violence, such as dealing drugs. But in that "noble cause," it is easy to see how some officers may be tempted to cut legal corners, said First Assistant Chief David Brown.
Tougher knock and talk rules could help police strike a balance between fighting drugs and protecting the rights of citizens, including drug dealers, he said.
"We've got to do more to get a handle on illegal drugs in our community," Chief Brown said. "But we have to find ways to do it that are legal, moral and ethical."
Under current knock and talk policy, officers must have a supervisor present for planned knock and talk operations. They can obtain either written or verbal consent for the search.
"The law is clear verbal consent is OK," Chief Brown said. "But verbal consent is so weak. We need to cut out the perception that verbal consent was not given or even fabricated. How you got into the house is key."
In Mr. Hall's case, a federal judge threw out drug and gun evidence seized in April 2004 at his mother's apartment. The judge did not believe a Dallas police officer who testified that when he approached the second-floor apartment to conduct a knock and talk, he found the door wide open and Mr. Hall and a friend packaging crack at the kitchen table.
Instead, the judge believed Mr. Hall, who testified that he did have crack and a gun, but that the door had only been slightly ajar. Testimony showed that if the door had been slightly ajar, the kitchen table would not have been visible.
"The Court finds the defendant to be more credible ... ." U. S. District Judge Jerry Buchmeyer wrote in his September ruling. "In addition, the Court found the defendant's testimony to be more consistent and forthright."
"This court cannot excuse a tainted search just because it bore fruit," his 29-page opinion stated.
The officer involved could not be reached for comment. Police said he didn't face any disciplinary action because there was no evidence of a violation of department policy or procedure.
"Everybody wants to see drugs off the street," Mr. Blassingame said. "The problem is they're going out there and violating the hell out of these people's rights."
|
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/011306dnmetknockandtalk.1bbde17a.html
|
|