Imagine if cops showed up at your front door, banged on the door and demanded that you come outside and answer their questions. Why? Because the contractor working next door says you yelled at him and hurt his feelings… Knowing your rights – that the police cannot just stand on your front porch, detain you, force you to answer their questions, and shout things at you without your permission – you tell them to leave. You even call the cops on the cops. I mean, they don’t have a warrant, and they don’t have your permission. Right? But even though the courts have said this violates your constitutional rights, what if the cops just don’t care? What if the people at 911 don’t care? What if the supervisor doesn’t care? What if they just ignore your constitutional rights?

This involves the Coolidge, Arizona Police Department. Here’s the Police Report and Dispatch Log:

Case law discussed in the video:

As the Supreme Court held in the 1980 case of Payton v. New York, absent valid consent or exigent circumstances (i.e., an emergency actively occurring) law enforcement may not cross the threshold of a residence without a warrant.” Either to search or arrest. 

As the Supreme Court held in the 2018 case of Collins v. Virginia, police cannot enter the curtilage of a home (which is the area close to the home that is treated as a part of the home, such as an enclosed yard, garage or driveway or porch) to search a vehicle parked within that curtilage of that home without a warrant, even where they have probable cause. The Courts (including the 9th circuit) have held that it is “commonsense” and “easily understood” that area “an arm’s-length from one’s house” is curtilage. (citing Morgan v. Fairfield County 6th circuit 2018)).

A so-called “knock and talk” exception to the warrant requirement isn’t really an exception at all. But it allows police to enter the curtilage of a home to ask questions of its occupant “precisely because that is ‘no more than any private citizen might do.’ (Florida v. Jardines (2013). So while police, like “the Nation’s Girl Scouts and trick-or-treaters,” can approach a home to speak with its occupant, nothing in the implied license to have that consensual interaction suggests a visitor can restrict the movements of a homeowner next to his own home any more than she could force the resident to buy cookies or hand out candy. (U.S. v. Lundin (9th Circuit. 2016)).

There is no right to detain, arrest, or otherwise seize the homeowner implied by the license to perform a knock and talk. To the contrary, that implied license may be revoked by the homeowner. (Davis v. US (9th Circuit 1964)).