When Does A "Knock and Talk" Become a Fourth Amendment Violation?

Law enforcement can initiate a "knock and talk" anytime. A knock and talk does not have to involve any probable cause or reasonable suspicion and involves the consent of the citizen involved. However, warrantless searches are considered Fourth Amendment violations and evidence located from a warrantless search needs to be suppressed by the trial court. A Tampa Bay area case demonstrates how Tampa law enforcement went from a consensual encounter to a warrantless search and Fourth Amendment violation.

In Hardin v. State, deputies patrolled a Motel 6 parking lot and noticed a parked car with a Brownsville, Texas, license plate. The deputies considered Brownsville a hub of illegal drug activity, so they questioned the motel clerk who gave the deputies room information associated with the car. Because the name of the registration did not match the motel's guest records, the deputies became even more suspicious and instigated a "knock and talk" with the registered motel guests, Gerardo Hardin and his wife, Ms. Sierra.

Hardin spoke to several deputies outside the motel room, then consented to a female deputy, Glasscock, entering the room to speak to Sierra, who was naked in bed under the sheets. Glasscock determined she would need a translator because Sierra did not speak English so another male deputy, Baez, arrived twenty minutes later. Baez entered the motel room to translate for Glasscock.

The deputies warned Hardin and Sierra that they were searching for illegal drugs. Hardin gave them his permission to search the car and a K-9 unit was called. The law enforcement officials failed to locate drugs. Glasscock and Baez meanwhile obtained Sierra's consent to search the motel room and the deputies found nothing. During this entire period of time, Sierra remained in bed, naked under the bed sheets.

The deputies continued to badger Sierra, told her they knew she had drugs, and promised they would not charge her if she was cooperative. Sierra stated that she wanted no trouble. The deputies continued to harass Sierra until she finally gave them a purse containing cocaine from under the bed sheets. The male deputies exited the room while Sierra dressed and Hardin yelled from the parking lot that the drugs were his.

Hardin was arrested and pled guilty to trafficking in cocaine. Hardin filed a motion to suppress arguing that Sierra. The trial court denied Hardin's motion and Hardin was convicted and sentenced for cocaine trafficking. Hardin appealed.

The court shall consider the totality of the circumstances to determine if consent is voluntary and the following factors: (1) time and place of the encounter; (2) number of deputies present; (3) the words and actions of the law enforcement officials. The court must weigh the factors from a reasonable person's perspective - as someone who is untrained in the law—to decide whether he or she was free to end the consensual encounter.

The Second District Court of Appeals noted the motel room was not big or spacious. Further, three deputies, including two men, were in the room while Sierra was naked and her husband was outside. Both Hardin and Sierra knew they were being investigated for illegal drugs. The deputies' repeatedly telling Sierra they knew she had drugs and would not be charged if she cooperated indicated coercion, not voluntary consent, compelled Sierra to turn over the contraband. Accordingly, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision, agreeing that Sierra did not voluntarily hand over the contraband to the deputies and the trial court should have granted the motion to suppress.


------

Ryan Rooth is a St. Petersburg Florida criminal defense lawyer who can assist you with your legal needs. If you or a loved one has been arrested or has questions about criminal law, claim your FREE e-book providing help on your Florida criminal case, available at =>http://www.roothlawgroup.com