|
It's the public--not the police--that is most likely to be harmed by warrantless searches.
Last week's fatal shooting of an on-duty Portland police officer was a tragedy--not only for the officer, her family and the rest of the police force, but for every Portlander whose sense of security was violated by Steven Douglas Dons' bullets. Officer Colleen Waibel's death and the injuries to officers Kim Keist and Jim Hudson also heightened public awareness of a police tactic in the War on Drugs: searches in which police knock on the doors of houses and ask occupants if they can look around. The police frequently resort to this type of search when they suspect illegal drug activity but lack sufficient evidence to obtain a search warrant. Such "knock and talks," as they are called, clearly push the envelope of constitutional protection. If, during a knock and talk, the occupant withholds consent, police may enter a house without a warrant if "exigent circumstances" are present. There may be commotion inside, possibly indicating destruction of evidence. Toilets may be heard flushing. The smell of marijuana may be in the air. Officers Waibel, Keist and Hudson apparently were relying on such justification last week when they picked up a paving stone and smashed down Dons' door after he failed to respond to repeated knocks. In light of what's been learned about Dons in the past week, it's hard to feel much concern for his constitutional rights. At the same time, it's clear that, while knock-and-talk searches may be appropriate law-enforcement tools, they also result in improper invasions of people's homes. If Portland learns anything from last week's police shootings, it should
be this: Unless they perceive that someone inside the house is in imminent danger, police should back off when an attempt at a knock-and-talk search fails. In such instances, they should be instructed not to rely on exigent circumstances, but to obtain search warrants instead. Such "knock-and-walk" procedures might protect police from the sorts of deadly surprises that occurred last week. They would also ensure protection of our basic rights. If the cost of protecting our constitutional rights is that a couple of marijuana growers are allowed to incinerate their plants, so be it. |
