A man in Owensboro, Kentucky accidentally butt-dialed 911 by pressing the emergency button on his phone’s Lock Screen. Then, some of the most constitutionally ignorant cops I’ve ever shown on this channel, arrive at the guy’s front door. He tells them it was a butt dial; that he’s alone in his house and there’s no emergency. But sensing something other than complete and total submission to government authority, the cops claim they smell marijuana, stick their foot in the door, and detain him without a warrant. Even worse than that, they tell him that they’re about to come in his house – also without a warrant, just due to the alleged smell – just completely disregarding longstanding and clearly established constitutional law saying that they can’t do that. He asks for their supervisor. But when the supervisor shows up, he’s even worse than they are.
This footage was circulating on X/Twitter, showing police in Longview, Texas arresting this guy just inside the front door of his home. The incident began as a traffic stop for speeding 10 mph over. The stop took place in the driveway of the home. The driver proceeds to be extremely aggressive towards the obviously-rookie officer. After a backup officer arrived, the young officer issues the citation for speeding. Then the man goes to walk inside the house, but the backup officer follows him and an arrest was made.
So it looks like there was an outstanding warrant from 2014 for “ISSUING CERTIFICATE TO VEHICLE MISSING OR WITH NON-COMPLIANT INSPECTION ITEM” that was “executed” on the same date as the body cam recording. According to Gregg County, Texas court records, Trenton Futrell “did not show up” to the May 9, 2024 docket call / court date for that citation, resulting in a $273.00 fine (if I’m reading this correctly).
Then, after the court date on the warrant that Trenton was arrested for on April 18, 2024 (the bodycam incident), they charged him by complaint/information on May 16, 2024 with “RESIST ARREST SEARCH OR TRANSPORT” – presumably for what had occurred during the April 18 incident (though I don’t know for sure without reviewing the charging document). It appears that charge is still pending.
Here’s the text of the Texas statute he’s accused of violating:
Sec. 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another.(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful.(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the actor uses a deadly weapon to resist the arrest or search.
A federal lawsuit was filed after a man was shot and killed by a Princeton (West Virginia) Police Officer inside his own house, following allegations from his neighbor that he had been riding his ATV through the neighbor’s yard. The officers were captured on bodycam footage engaging in an investigation within the curtilage of the man’s yard, and ultimately kicking in the door and shooting him. The officer who shot and killed the man claimed that the man had a baseball bat and refused to drop it. Conveniently however, he wasn’t wearing a bodycam, despite a department policy mandating that he do so. Some of the shooting was captured on another officer’s bodycam. It was recently released by the family’s lawyers.
Ring doorbell video surfaced showing the arrest of a man at his own front door, after he refused to provide identification to police officers in Clayton County, Georgia. The footage showed officers arresting the man without a warrant. After the footage went viral, the police department then made their own Youtube video responding to the footage, as well as the allegations. But the issue remains: can cops constitutionally arrest a homeowner at his own front door without a warrant?
The Fourth Amendment guarantees the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The constitutional protection of people in their houses extends to the “curtilage” of the home, which is “the area ‘immediately surrounding and associated with the home.'” Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 1663, 1670 (2018) (quoting Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 6 (2013)).
Subject to a few exceptions, the Fourth Amendment prohibits law enforcement from entering a home or its curtilage to conduct a search without a warrant. United States v. Walker, 799 F.3d 1361, 1363 (11th Cir. 2015). United States v. Stephen, No. 19-12172 (11th Cir. Aug 06, 2020)
Here’s yet another video of police officers detaining or arresting a man’s wife, in order to coerce him into complying with their demands – whether legal or not. Last time, this happened in Georgia. But this time, we’re in Shawnee, Oklahoma. The Oklahoman originally reported on this incident and provided the video footage. Once again, most people misunderstand the application of the Fourth Amendment in and around the “curtilage” of a home.
Several people sent me this video from the Crime Scene Cam youtube channel, showing a young, entitled couple confronting cops over their parked cars, several of which are in the public roadway. They learn several lessons here. But the more important lesson is the interplay in Fourth Amendment rights when it comes to the public road, versus the curtilage of your home.
On March 18 at 1:15 a.m., the Calloway County Sheriff’s Department, in Kentucky, arrived at a private residence with an arrest warrant for a guy who did not reside at the residence, but whose vehicle was parked in the yard, undergoing maintenance by the homeowner. When the footage turns on, you’ll see police walking towards the husband slash homeowner. Then you’ll see the man’s wife come outside and ask for a warrant and also for the officers to leave the property.
This raises constitutional issues about whether law enforcement can enter and remain in someone’s front yard under these circumstances, where the home’s residents are present and asking them to leave. And where there is no arrest warrant for the home’s residents – nor a search warrant for that home? This also raises issues about whether police can detain those residents, including their guests, without their consent and in the absence of a search warrant? This is a common issue that most people misunderstand – especially police. Let’s look at this footage, which you haven’t seen anywhere else, and clear up the legal rights at issue.
NOTE: This footage was submitted anonymously and I really have no idea what the outcome was in the criminal case, or otherwise. One would hope that no convictions resulted from this, for reasons I explain in the video, as well as below….
Some of the applicable law discussed in the video:
According to the 1980 Supreme Court opinion in Payton v. New York, in order to legally arrest someone in a home, rather than in a public place, absent consent or exigent circumstances, police officers must have a warrant.
According to the 1984 Supreme Court opinion in Oliver v. United States, the heightened Fourth Amendment protections of the home extend beyond just the interior of the home itself into what’s called the “curtilage” of the home, which is the land immediately surrounding and associated with the home. Why? Because according to the Supreme Court, the curtilage is considered part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.
In the 2013 Supreme Court opinion of Florida v. Jardines, the Court held that a search undoubtedly occurs when the government, without a warrant, obtains information by physically intruding within the curtilage of a house, which in that actual case involved a home’s front porch. The Court cautioned that a search occurs unless a homeowner has explicitly or implicitly sanctioned the government’s physical intrusion into the constitutionally protected area, i.e., the yard and/or porch of the home.
Under the “knock and talk” exception to the warrant requirement, a police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock, precisely because that is “no more than any private citizen might do.” This means there is an “implicit license . . . to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave.” An officer may also bypass the front door (or another entry point usually used by visitors) when circumstances reasonably indicate that the officer might find the homeowner elsewhere on the property. “Critically, however, the right to knock and talk does not entail a right to conduct a general investigation of the home’s curtilage.”
The obvious difference between a police officer and a young girl selling girl scout cookies, is that many, if not most, homeowners have no idea whether they have any right to refuse to answer the door, or to ask the person to leave. Police like it this way. They don’t inform people of these rights, and the courts have ruled that they have no legal obligation to do so. You have to inform yourself and spread the word.
Police officers, and anyone else really, have an implied license to come onto your property and knock on your door. This implied license can be revoked. Homeowners can prevent ordinary citizens and police officers alike from conducting a knock and talk by revoking their implied license to be there. However, few citizens know that an implied license exists. Generally, the courts require that a homeowner do so by clear demonstrations or express orders. For instance, asking someone to leave or refusing to answer questions.
