SCOTUS per curiam decides a not front door knock-and-talk on qualified immunity

Officers didn’t go to the front door for a knock-and-announce and they didn’t anybody. The law was not clearly established at the time. The homeowner sued under § 1983. SCOTUS per curiam grants the officers qualified immunity without full briefing. Carroll v. Garman, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 7430 (November 10, 2014):

The Carmans later sued Officer Carroll in Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Among other things, they alleged that Carroll unlawfully entered their property in violation of the Fourth Amendment when hewent into their backyard and onto their deck without a warrant. 749 F. 3d, at 196.

At trial, Carroll argued that his entry was lawful under the “knock and talk” exception to the warrant requirement. That exception, he contended, allows officers to knock on someone’s door, so long as they stay “on thoseportions of [the] property that the general public is allowed to go on.” Tr. 7 (Apr. 8, 2013). The Carmans responded that a normal visitor would have gone to theirfront door, rather than into their backyard or onto their deck. Thus, they argued, the “knock and talk” exception did not apply.

. . .

We do not decide today whether those cases were correctly decided or whether a police officer may conduct a “knock and talk” at any entrance that is open to visitors rather than only the front door. “But whether or not the constitutional rule applied by the court below was correct,it was not ‘beyond debate.’” Stanton v. Sims, 571 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (per curiam) (slip op., at 8) (quoting al-Kidd, 563 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 9)). The Third Circuit therefore erred when it held that Carroll was not entitled to qualified immunity.