Is Chocking Open the Door During Knock and Talk a Search or Seizure?

I wanted to share a question that a student asked in class. I think this is an important topic, so I hope you find it valuable.

The question was whether officers conducting a knock-and-talk may place their foot in the front door to prevent it from closing while talking to the occupant, without implicating the Fourth Amendment. The short answer is no—it does implicate the Fourth Amendment, and if it does, the officer needs what I refer to as “CREW.” CREW is an acronym I created that stands for Consent, Recognized Exception, or Warrant. Officers need one of these three to take any action that implicates the Fourth Amendment.

Now, let’s go over why this is the case. Placing a foot in the door to prevent it from closing is done for one of two main purposes: either the officer is attempting to look for evidence inside the house (to see plain view evidence) or to prevent the occupant from closing the door before the conversation is complete.

First, let’s address plain view. The plain view doctrine states that an officer is allowed to seize evidence if they are lawfully present and see, hear, or smell something that gives them probable cause to believe it is contraband. However, just because an officer places their foot in the door to get a better look inside the house does not mean they are in plain view. The home is the most protected area under the Fourth Amendment, and an officer must have more than just a desire to prevent the door from closing to justify this intrusion.

If the officer’s intention is to conduct a search by placing their foot in the door, it is not considered plain view—it is a search, and it must comply with Fourth Amendment standards.

Secondly, some officers may place their foot in the door to prevent the occupant from closing it and ending the conversation. However, this action also implicates the Fourth Amendment, as it amounts to a seizure. A seizure occurs when an officer intentionally interferes with a person’s possessory interest in their property. The occupant has the constitutional right to close the door and refuse to speak with law enforcement. If the officer prevents this, they are interfering with the occupant’s rights, which implicates the Fourth Amendment and requires CREW (Consent, Recognized Exception, or Warrant).

Does the officer have consent? In this scenario, probably not, since the occupant is trying to close the door. Is there a recognized exception? You may argue that there is, but you would need to justify it. For example, if an officer is investigating domestic violence and the husband is trying to close the door while the officer is trying to ensure the safety of the wife, exigency could apply. The last option is whether the officer has a warrant, which, in most knock-and-talk situations, they would not.

I hope this helps clarify the issue. It’s a great question—keep them coming! You can reach me at BlueToGold.com. Thank you, and stay safe.