Menu
Home
People
Places
Arts
History
Plants & Animals
Science
Life & Culture
Technology
Reference.org
Knock and talk
open-in-new
<h2 id="in-the-united-states">In the United States</h2> <p>The legality of the knock and talk procedure has been carefully scrutinized and reviewed by American courts at the state and federal level.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:2" href="#fn:2"><sup>2</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:3" href="#fn:3"><sup>3</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:4" href="#fn:4"><sup>4</sup></a> Rulings in both the <a href="/facts/Ninth_Circuit/1CXnSzs9">Ninth Circuit</a> case <i>United States v. Cormier</i><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:5" href="#fn:5"><sup>5</sup></a> and <a href="/facts/Seventh_Circuit/o8CTBX67">Seventh Circuit</a> case <i>United States v. Jerez</i><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:6" href="#fn:6"><sup>6</sup></a> have held that evidence obtained from a consensual search following a knock and talk is <a href="/facts/Admissible_evidence/QGQKaheH">admissible</a>, but only if the knock and talk is not conducted in a coercive or aggressive manner. Per <i><a href="/facts/Bumper_v._North_Carolina/ANlwhUFT">Bumper v. North Carolina</a></i>, the use of deception to obtain consent can also in some cases prevent the search from being upheld. </p><p>Per <i><a href="/facts/Kentucky_v._King/qdBs4n37">Kentucky v. King</a></i>, when a police officer who is not armed with a search warrant knocks on a door and requests the opportunity to speak, the occupant has no obligation to open the door or to speak.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:7" href="#fn:7"><sup>7</sup></a> </p> <h2 id="references">References</h2> <ol> <li id="fn:1"><p>Holcomb, Jayne (August 2006). "Knock and Talks". FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. 75 (8): 22–32. Retrieved 2014-11-15. <a href="https://leb.fbi.gov/2006-pdfs/leb-august-2006" target="_blank">https://leb.fbi.gov/2006-pdfs/leb-august-2006</a> <a href="#fnref:1" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:2"><p>Holcomb, Jayne (August 2006). "Knock and Talks". FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. 75 (8): 22–32. Retrieved 2014-11-15. <a href="https://leb.fbi.gov/2006-pdfs/leb-august-2006" target="_blank">https://leb.fbi.gov/2006-pdfs/leb-august-2006</a> <a href="#fnref:2" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:3"><p>"State v. Dwyer". Kansas Judicial Branch. Kansas Judicial Center. December 8, 2000. Retrieved June 18, 2014. <a href="http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/ctapp/2000/20001208/83746.htm" target="_blank">http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/ctapp/2000/20001208/83746.htm</a> <a href="#fnref:3" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:4"><p>"The "knock and talk" tactic is held to be constitutional" (PDF). Legal Update. 6 (9). Michigan State Police Training Division: 1–2. November 2001. Retrieved June 18, 2014. <a href="http://www.michigan.gov/documents/november2001_8722_7.PDF" target="_blank">http://www.michigan.gov/documents/november2001_8722_7.PDF</a> <a href="#fnref:4" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:5"><p>Holcomb, Jayne (August 2006). "Knock and Talks". FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. 75 (8): 22–32. Retrieved 2014-11-15. <a href="https://leb.fbi.gov/2006-pdfs/leb-august-2006" target="_blank">https://leb.fbi.gov/2006-pdfs/leb-august-2006</a> <a href="#fnref:5" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:6"><p>Holcomb, Jayne (August 2006). "Knock and Talks". FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. 75 (8): 22–32. Retrieved 2014-11-15. <a href="https://leb.fbi.gov/2006-pdfs/leb-august-2006" target="_blank">https://leb.fbi.gov/2006-pdfs/leb-august-2006</a> <a href="#fnref:6" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:7"><p>"Kentucky v. King". <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/216733/kentucky-v-king/" target="_blank">https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/216733/kentucky-v-king/</a> <a href="#fnref:7" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> </ol>