Knock-and-talk led to officer smelling a meth lab

Knock and talk ripened into probable cause when the defendant opened the door and the officer smelled a meth lab. United States v. Walters, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96267 (E.D. Tex. October 10, 2007). Comment: This case has an interesting, and lengthy, discussion of the development of knock and talk and the implied invitation to come to the front door:

American courts, generally, and the Fifth Circuit in particular, view pristine “knock and talk” incidents as legitimate investigative tactics. U.S. v. Lewis, 476 F.3d 369 (5th Cir. 2007); U.S. v. Gould, 364 F.3d 578 (5th Cir. 2004); United States v. Jones, 239 F.3d 716, 720 (5th Cir. 2001). American society deems that its citizens impliedly consent to unsolicited visits to their residences by members of the public such as Girl Scouts selling cookies, candidates for public office, pollsters, persons distributing religious literature and the like. Accordingly, citizens have a “diminished expectation of privacy” in that area surrounding their homes which constitutes the main route taken by members of the general public when visiting. See United States v. Titemore, 437 F.3d 251, 259 (2nd Cir. 2006).

Police officers with legitimate business may enter areas impliedly open to the public, and are permitted the same license to intrude as a reasonably respectful citizen. Thus, when an officer of the law simply walks up to the door and knocks, (s)he visits the house in the same lawful way that a private citizen would, and the ensuing “knock and talk” does not implicate the Fourth Amendment or its exceptions because no search or seizure occurs.

Officers, of course, do knock and talks without probable cause, just fishing for an excuse to enter. And, citizens actually acquiesce and let them in when the officers lack any justification for the entry.