Brooklyn 99 on Knock and Talk

From the Crimprof Multipedia, for teaching purposes...

Category
Search

Tags
consent, drugs, exigent circumstances, fourth amendment, house, plain view, probable cause, protective sweep, search, third party doctrine

Post
In the pilot of Brooklyn 99, detectives Peralta and Santiago are ordered to “door duty” following the discovery of a homicide in an apartment.

This of course might be an interesting application, because there is reason to think a nearby resident might have information about the crime, a la Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004). But since Girl Scouts and trick-or-treaters can knock too, we of course don’t need to worry about that, say the Supremes. See Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013); Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011).

So, here’s a conversation that ensues:

Video Link

In addition to the generally permissive point above, this might spark some discussion about whether topical limitations ought to exist (whereas here the homeowner makes a ‘spontaneous threshold confession’, of a sort), and about plain view (the bong). Assuming marijuana is illegal to possess, there is clearly probable cause…also exigency to enter? Consent? Could the officers request that consent? If consent were refused, could they require the three individuals step outside while police seek a warrant? For how long? Could they do a protective sweep for additional persons, and, if so, of what locations? And if marijuana is regulated but not necessarily illegal, how’s that play out? As is often the case, a simple visual hypothetical can lead to lots of classroom practice.

For the truly curious, here’s a clip of how it goes for the next two doors:

Video Link

All of which goes to show…detectives must keep up with the times (today, lord only knows who still receives a physical paper).