![]() The court also even pointed out that RCW 10.79.040 creates the misdemeanor of a law enforcement officer entering and searching a private dwelling without the authority of a search warrant. It also recognized that any “knock and talk” is inherently coercive to some degree. The court also reasoned that the law draws a firm line at the entrance to the home and the home is a highly private place that receives heightened constitutional protection. The failure to provide these warnings, prior to entering the home, vitiates any consent given thereafter. Hen police officers conduct a knock and talk for the purpose of obtaining consent to search a home, and thereby avoid the necessity of obtaining a warrant, they must, prior to entering the home, inform the person from whom consent is sought that he or she may lawfully refuse to consent to the search and that they can revoke, at any time, the consent they give, and can limit the scope of the consent to certain areas of the home. The court looked to the plain directive given by the Supreme Court of Washington in Ferrier: ![]() Because the officers failed to do this in Budd, the Court sent the case back to the trial court with directions to dismiss the charges against resident. All Ferrier warnings must be given before police enter the home. It also concluded that the detective could not wait to inform the resident of other Ferrier warnings after entering the home. The court concluded that the Detective could not merely tell the resident that he had a right to refuse the search before entering. The Court of Appeals held that law enforcement officers must deliver EACH Ferrier Warning BEFORE entering a residence. It turns out that this was NOT correct procedure. Would this have seemed totally reasonable to you at the time, if the police were at your home? The officers seized the resident’s computer and found some bad stuff on it that led to a felony conviction. He signed the document after acknowledging he understood the warnings and was giving consent. The officers reviewed a written consent form containing Ferrier warnings with him after entering the home, but before searching the resident’s computer. He replied that he didn’t want his computer viewed in front of his girlfriend, then allowed the officers to enter his home for the purpose of searching his computer. The detective replied that she would apply for a warrant if he did not consent. The Detective asked for consent to enter the home and search a computer, and the resident asked the detective if she had a warrant. The Detective identified herself and other officers and told them they received a tip that indicated illegal items were located inside his home, and they were concerned about the safety of another inside. His girlfriend answered the door and explained the he was at work. Three officers went to the resident’s door in Budd, but the resident was not home at first. ![]() Other times, residents may feel pressured to permit the officers to enter – they may feel a need to be policed or may feel that refusing entry may indicate guilty knowledge or that something is being hidden. Often the resident does not understand they have a right to refuse entry. A “knock and talk” is a police procedure where officers approach a private residence, knock on the door, and asks to come in and “take a look around.” This is done when the officers suspect criminal activity, but do not have probable cause for a warrant. In Budd, a “knock and talk” was performed at a resident’s home. The Court of Appeals also addressed the issue of whether each Ferrier warning must be given before entering the home. The Court of Appeals directly addressed the issue of whether all Ferrier warnings must be given before entering the home, or whether the warnings may be given after the officer enters the home but before searching it. Budd, Division Three of the Washington State Court of Appeals issued an opinion that revisited Ferrier. Evidence must be suppressed pursuant to the exclusionary rule and “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine if this rule is violated. These warnings are known commonly as “Ferrier Warnings.” Such warnings must be given by officers in Washington state in order for a home entry and search to be considered lawful. limit the extent of the officer’s entry). Notify the citizen can limit the scope of the consent (i.e.Inform the citizen consent can be revoked at any time.Ferrier, 136 Wn.2d 103 (1998), the Washington Supreme Court held that, before entering a citizen’s home, Article I, section 7 of the Washington state constitution requires that police officers: As mentioned in previous articles on this blog, any warrantless search or seizure is unlawful – without a jealously guarded exception to the warrant requirement.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |