We would like to thank Samuel Partida for turning us onto another case with his excellent research skills. This one, People v. Kofron, 2014 Il. App. 130335 (Il. App. 5th Dist., 8-21-14), concerns the police practice of going to a person’s house without a warrant, knocking on the door, and engaging in a conversation with whoever answers the door to persuade them to allow officers to search the house. The Judge in Kofron found the police were in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The facts in Kofron are as follows. The police claim to have been tipped off that the Defendant and the woman he often stayed with, Tiffany Polzin, were seen purchasing large amounts of pseudoephedrine, a principal ingredient in methamphetamine. Polzin, as well as one of the State’s own witnesses, testified that when police arrived at the house, she told police officers that they would not be allowed inside the house without a warrant. Polzin testified that a police officer pushed his hand through the screen door, grabbed her through the door, and pulled her outside where she was placed in handcuffs. Kofron was in the house at the time, but testified that he did not see Polzin get arrested. He went to the front door after hearing the commotion, and the police told him that they wanted to speak to him outside. Kofron told the police that he would have to go out through the back door because he could hear Polzin’s dogs barking near the front door. The police agreed to let him go out the back door. When Kofron went outside through the back door, there were three or four police officers waiting for him. Kofron testified that after telling police that he did not live in the house, one of the officers tackled him from behind and placed him under arrest. A detective testified for the State that the police found materials sitting on top of the garbage can that are commonly used for production of methamphetamine.
The main issue in Kofron is whether the police were allowed to go around the house. In People v. Redman, 386 Ill. App. 3d 409(2008), the Fourth District held that when police officers decide to conduct a knock and talk, they are allowed to position officers at both the front and back door. In Redman, the officers smelled odors commonly associated with methamphetamine production emanating from the house, and made the decision to arrest the occupants before they knocked on the door. The Kofron court held that the facts in Redman are distinguishable from the facts in Kofron, because the police in Redman had strong reason to believe that a crime was being committed [inside the house] and with the intention of arresting the occupants. Therefore, the police had reason to fear someone fleeing out the back door. Redman at 419. No such intention existed in Kofron, so the police intrusion into the back yard was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Although the intrusion into the back yard was the main distinction of Kofron, for a thoughtful analysis of the ‘knock and talk’ practice itself, check out Samuel Partida’s informative blog here. Let us know what you think. Comment below, to let us know what you think of the knock and talk practice.
If you have any questions regarding the laws around knock and talk police encounters, please contact us at LauraLaw.
