E.D.Mo.: No exigency for entry after knock-and-talk

There was no justification for a warrantless entry into defendant’s house after a knock-and-talk. While the officers were found credible on the question of whether a document entitled “consent to search” was signed, they omitted the critical facts of alleged exigency from their reports, and that was important. They needed a warrant and elected to proceed without one. United States v. Whisenton, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52667 (E.D. Mo. March 8, 2013)*:

Considering the above facts, the undersigned concludes that these facts do not justify a warrantless entry into the house. This is particularly so because none of these exigent circumstances are in the report of the search of the house. For whatever reason, the agents decided not to put their fears for their safety anywhere in their report even though they testified it was important for them to do so. For whatever reason, the agents decided not to obtain a warrant to search the house during the five-hour delay or conduct any surveillance, or any other investigation of the occupants of the house except for the seemingly important but completely undocumented record check of the Defendant. Even crediting this record check, it was received very shortly before the knock and talk, and the agents, nevertheless, proceeded to do the knock and talk rather than to obtain a warrant. The undersigned is very aware that bad things can happen to agents and police officers at doorways of homes. Therefore, the undersigned fully understands why the agents would act in the manner in which they did in entering the house. The undersigned is also aware that a house may be entered without a warrant only based on exigent circumstances or consent. The undersigned finds, for the reasons stated above, that neither exists as to the initial entry into the house.