Can Officers Go Check the VIN of a Potentially Stolen Vehicle?

Today’s question comes from an officer in Missouri: “Can officers go onto curtilage to check the VIN of a potentially stolen vehicle?”

That’s the general question, but let me give you a bit more context. When I teach curtilage, I use something called the Curtilage Color Codes. I won’t go into full detail here—it’s a concept that takes about an hour to thoroughly explain—but here’s the gist:

1. Green Zones: These are open fields. Even if the property is owned by someone, open fields are not protected under the Fourth Amendment. However, some states may provide protections under their state constitutions if the area has a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g., fenced, gated, or marked with “No Trespassing” signs).
2. Yellow Zones: These are areas of curtilage that are protected by the Fourth Amendment but are accessible for routine purposes like knock-and-talks or calls for service. Think about the front porch or areas immediately surrounding the front door. These areas are accessible, but officers need to be mindful of social norms and avoid being intrusive.
3. Red Zones: These are areas of curtilage like backyards, carports attached to a home, or other private spaces where the public wouldn’t reasonably have access. Officers cannot enter these areas without exigent circumstances, such as emergencies or active investigations (e.g., a fire or burglary in progress).

Back to the Scenario

In this case, the potentially stolen vehicle is parked in a yellow zone—an area where the public might reasonably go to contact the homeowner. However, the officers want to check the VIN at 2:00 AM. Let’s address two key issues here:

1. Purpose of Entry

If officers are conducting a proper knock-and-talk at a reasonable time, they have implied consent to enter the yellow zone. For example, walking up a driveway to the front door is acceptable, and if they happen to see the VIN in plain view during this process, that’s lawful. The plain view doctrine applies because the officer has a right to be there and a right to see.

However, in this scenario, the officers’ sole intent is to check the VIN, not to conduct a knock-and-talk. That’s where the problem lies. Knock-and-talks require the intent to engage the homeowner, not simply to snoop around. Entering the property solely to inspect the VIN without implied consent violates the Fourth Amendment, even if the VIN is visible from the same spot where a knock-and-talk could have been conducted.

Simply put: If you’re not there to knock, you shouldn’t be there at all.

2. Timing of Entry (2:00 AM)

The second issue is the timing. Conducting a knock-and-talk at 2:00 AM is highly unusual and likely unreasonable unless there are specific circumstances justifying it. The officer mentioned that this is an active drug house with overnight activity, lights on, and possibly a wanted felon on the premises. While this adds context, it doesn’t automatically make a 2:00 AM knock-and-talk reasonable.

Courts will require evidence that a knock-and-talk at that hour is socially acceptable. For example, if the residence operates like a commercial drug house with people frequently coming and going at all hours, the court might find it reasonable to knock at 2:00 AM. However, the mere fact that people are awake doesn’t justify the timing. Staying up late to play video games doesn’t mean the Girl Scouts should knock to sell cookies at 2:00 AM.

Officers would need to present facts showing that members of the public commonly visit the property at that hour. For instance, if multiple people are observed knocking on the door, staying briefly, and leaving—indicating a commercial operation—then a 2:00 AM knock-and-talk might hold up in court. Without such evidence, the timing would likely be deemed unreasonable.

Key Takeaways

1. Intent Matters: If the officer truly intends to conduct a knock-and-talk, they should follow through with it and be prepared to explain to the court why it was reasonable at that time.
2. Plain View Doctrine: If the VIN is visible during a lawful knock-and-talk, it’s fair game. But entering the property solely to inspect the VIN without implied consent is not lawful.
3. Timing is Critical: A knock-and-talk at 2:00 AM requires strong justification, such as evidence of ongoing commercial activity at that hour. Without it, the action is unlikely to be upheld.

I hope this helps clarify the issue! This is a common question I get during my classes, and it’s an important one. If you found this helpful, please share it with others and consider attending one of my live, online, or on-demand classes. You can also check out my books on search and seizure and report writing.

Thanks for your support, and as always, stay safe out there.