Similar
Stories
Content from our friends over at Grits For Breakfast
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Dallas police substitute “knock and talk” for real investigation
This is lazy police work that lends itself to abuse when neighbors start calling the cops on one another or officers use the tool perniciously.
Last Wednesday at the Dallas Morning News Crime Blog, Steve Thompson reported that:
Dallas police began a new initiative today to combat drugs. Citywide, officers are headed to suspected drug houses to "knock and talk" with the occupants.
The technique involves knocking on the door of a suspected drug house and trying to talk the people inside into inviting officers in to search without a warrant. Police can enter without a search warrant if they see illegal activity happening.
Dallas police have long used the technique, but its use will be widened during the next few months to include more officers and more areas within the city. ...
"We're doing this to close these particular locations down," said Deputy Chief Rick Watson at Southwest Patrol, who is heading up the effort.
I'm always amazed that anybody -- much less anybody with a drug stash in their house -- would consent to a police officer searching their home without a good reason or a warrant. That said, such methods have stood up in the past as a legal tactic under current 4th Amendment case law (depending on what's said and done at the door). Crooks and non-crooks alike are intimidated by police and most folks don't know their rights in such situations, so often they'll acquiesce. Given how drivers react when police ask to search their vehicles (almost always consenting), there's good reason to believe many would do the same at their residence.
On the flip side, this is lazy police work that lends itself to abuse when neighbors start calling the cops on one another or officers use the tool perniciously. As I wrote in the comments at the Dallas Morning News Crime Blog, "If these are 'suspected drug houses,' presumably they have reason to suspect them. Why not investigate, establish probable cause and get a search warrant?" Taking morally dubious shortcuts seldom pays off in the long run.
I also suspect, since officers' unstated goal during these visits is to "close these particular locations down," that these targets won't be expressly told they can refuse the search if they choose to do so. That knowledge makes a big difference as to whether people consent, though courts have ruled police don't have to tell them they have that right. In Austin, after APD began requiring informed written consent for searches at traffic stops, the number of vehicle searches performed without probable cause declined 63%.
If Dallas police were serious about ending drug dealing in these neighborhoods, they wouldn't be looking for shortcuts based on rumors but applying strategies with more proven track records. The most successful approach I'm aware of is the High Point model, where police actually investigate, make cases on individuals, then confront them and their families with evidence in an effort to coerce them to change their behavior. Without that community assistance, a new crackhouse pops up as soon as you get rid of the last one. But it's hard work to empower communities to confront crime, while doing "knock and talk" in response to unverified complaints from neighbors basically amounts to engaging in fishing expeditions that require few investigative resources.
The "knock and talk" tactic will inevitably result in arrests here and there, but it won't solve the problem, may create a few, and amounts to taking the easy way out without reducing the city's drug problem.
Pegasus News Content partner - Grits For Breakfast
Nearby stories
- Looking for dinner and a game of bocce? Try Samar by Stephan Pyles
- Dallas Beer Kitchen promises "rare, hard to find" brews on Lowest Greenville
- Transit Bicycle Co. relocates to Lower Greenville
- Creepy rendering of Big Tex shows he's almost ready for the State Fair
- Photos: Dallas Heritage Village Charleston'd its way through history on Saturday
Faved or commented on by...
Latest Contests
Latest comments...
5-year-old from Richardson featured on So You Think You Can Dance Tuesday night
I loved it! They expressed so much through dancing! So, so powerful! Then i accidently erased the sh
Old Settlers' Park and Recreation Center
Travis Bush, verified:
maybe they show up with a hot dish and a bottle of wine..
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Pavel Lishin, verified:
"Why not investigate, establish probable cause and get a search warrant?"
Because it takes about 1/10th of the time to knock and say hello, and see the gigantic bong sitting on top of the dead hooker through the wide-open door.
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
jtmbls, anonymous:
The only way I am opening my door to them is if they are carrying pink fuzzy handcuffs and a boom box prepared to do a full strip-tease act.
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
rpm4565, anonymous:
"dubious moral shortcuts"???? The only thing dubious here is the idea that this author deserves publication.
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
chriss, anonymous:
"...inviting officers in to search without a warrant." Anyone stupid enough to do that deserves what they get.
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
RobertB, anonymous:
Interesting, it seems that @rpm4565 and @chriss have systematically rejected three out of ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
Consider the First Amendment (freedom of speech). The author of the Grits for Breakfast blog has as much right to have his opinion reposted here as anyone else. Whether it "deserves" publication is completely up to the PegNews editors. Don't like their choices? Have fun adding knee-jerk comments at the Dallas Managed News site, instead.
It's not "stupid" to be suspicious of a policeman's motive, especially if you still remember the Fake Drug Scandal. That's the whole reason behind the Fourth Amendment's protection from no unreasonable search & seizure -- a motivated adversary can find something incriminating in even the most innocent person's home.
Of course, refusing to allow the officer in for a warrantless search will cause the officer and his buddies to assume you have something to hide. Simply refusing the officer permission causes you to incriminate yourself -- and even the most casual viewer of Law & Order knows that the Fifth Amendment specifically states that you should not be compelled to testify against yourself.
This whole discussion would be pretty pointless, of course, if it weren't such earth-shattering news that the DPD is going to start having their officers get out of their cars and talk to people. That's the real problem that the Grits blogger is trying to bring out, when he wonders if the department really wants to get the drugs out of the neighborhoods. If this "new" technique isn't part of an overall push on all fronts, it won't do anything more than inflate arrest statistics, and dump even more nonviolent potheads into the Lew Sterett Criminal Generation Facility, where they can learn how to become more violent and dangerous.
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
jtmbls, anonymous:
I heart Robert Brooks! I hardly miss ScoDo now while he's off somewhere trying to pretend to have a life. To the left, to the left...
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
chriss, anonymous:
Clarification: I was implying it would be stupid to invite the police in to search without a warrant. And I'm well aware of the "you must have something to hide" mentality. What do you suggest those who get that neighborly knock on the door do? You're f*cked either way; might as well go down standing up for your rights.
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
nomail, anonymous:
Robert Brooks: "Of course, refusing to allow the officer in for a warrantless search will cause the officer and his buddies to assume you have something to hide."
You need to sternly refuse a search. Doing so does not rise to the level of probable cause to search a person or their property. Stop wasting my tax dollars and police time by consenting to police searches. If you are not harming other people, you have no business doing that. Some of you may be interested in this site: www.FlexYourRights.org
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
What do you think?