Court Opinion

ID: 9658188
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:50:26.162512+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:52.631901
License: Public Domain

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.
¶ 35. (dissenting). Today, this court decides three cases, each of which involves a search of a Milwaukee home where police *330officers have some suspicion of drug activity but have not procured a warrant. In each of these three cases, a majority of this court refuses to suppress the evidence because it concludes that one of the narrowly drawn and carefully delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement applies.
¶ 36. In State v. Artic, 2010 WI 83, 327 Wis. 2d 392, 786 N.W.2d 430, officers knock at the front door of a suspected drug house, and when the resident fails to answer, the officers kick down the door. With guns drawn, they knock on an intermediate door on the second floor, and the homeowner answers. Although the homeowner disputes that he consented to the search, this court determines that he consented, that his consent was voluntary, and that the consent exception to the warrant requirement applies.
¶ 37. In State v. Pinkard, 2010 WI 81, 327 Wis. 2d 346, 785 N.W.2d 592, five drug unit officers arrive at an apartment after an anonymous tipster alerts police that there are drugs, a scale, and money present. After the officers knock, announce their presence, and wait for 30 to 45 seconds, they then proceed to enter the residence out of concern for the welfare of the occupants. Although the testimony does not reveal that the officers were concerned about the possibility of an overdose, this court concludes that hypothetically, "an officer could reasonably be concerned that [the occupants] may have overdosed on drugs." Id., ¶ 35. Therefore, it determines that the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement applies.
¶ 38. In this case, at least seven officers arrive at an apartment to perform a "knock and talk" after an anonymous tip providing unspecified allegations that the resident is dealing drugs out of the apartment. Officers confirm that the resident is in the apartment, *331the resident fails to open the door, and the officers hear running footsteps. They then proceed to kick down the door. This court determines that because the resident is aware of the officers' presence, he has every incentive to intentionally destroy evidence. Under these facts, it determines that the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement applies.
¶ 39. Courts should refrain from "effectively creating] a situation in which the police have no reason to obtain a warrant when they want to search a home with any type of connections to drugs." See United States v. Ellis, 499 F.3d 686, 691 (7th Cir. 2007). Yet, the intersection of these three cases could lead one to conclude that when officers have a generalized suspicion that drug activity is occurring in a home, they need not go through the trouble of procuring a warrant. Rather, they need only execute a knock and talk.
¶ 40. If the suspect opens the door, that suspect may be found to have voluntarily consented to the search. If the suspect refuses to open the door and officers hear movement inside, there máy be exigent circumstances due to the possibility of the destruction of evidence. If no one answers the door, concern for the well-being of the occupants of what sounds like a drug house may justify entry under the community caretaker exception.
¶ 41. I am concerned that this case, along with the other two cases decided today, dilute the Fourth Amendment by allowing the knock and talk procedure to justify warrantless entry. Both law enforcement officers and courts alike should be mindful that the knock and talk technique rests on constitutionally thin ice.
¶ 42. In examining the facts of this case, I conclude that the majority errs in determining that probable cause and exigent circumstances were present *332here. Because I determine that the warrantless search of Robinson's apartment violates the constitutional protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, I respectfully dissent.
I
¶ 43. The majority correctly acknowledges that the State bears the burden of demonstrating that this warrantless home entry was supported by probable cause and justified by exigent circumstances. Majority op., ¶ 24. It determines that prior to breaking down the door to Apartment 8, the officers had probable cause to believe that evidence of illegal drug activity would be found in the apartment because the officers had corroborated three of the four details provided by the anonymous tipster: Robinson's name, address, and cell phone number. Id,., ¶¶ 26, 29. Although it recognizes that the only details corroborated were innocent, it suggests that the "specificity" of the anonymous informant's information and "the fact that he personally walked into the police station" supported his credibility. Id., ¶ 28.
¶ 44. The majority further determines that exigent circumstances were present because, once Robinson was aware of the officers' presence and his footsteps were heard running from the door, a reasonable officer would believe that Robinson would destroy evidence. Id., ¶ 31. The majority acknowledges that officers cannot justify a home entry due to exigent circumstances that they themselves create. Id., ¶ 32. However, citing United States v. MacDonald,1 the majority asserts that officers do not impermissibly create exigent *333circumstances when they are acting lawfully. Majority op., ¶ 32. Because officers may lawfully execute a warrantless knock and talk, the majority concludes: "It was not the officers' knock and announcement that created the exigent circumstances." Id. Rather, it was "Robinson's choice to run from the door" that created the exigency. Id.
¶ 45. When officers choose to execute a knock and talk rather than seeking a warrant, they are on constitutionally thin ice. The majority fails to recognize this thin ice, and instead ratifies this warrantless search.
¶ 46. In determining that probable cause and exigent circumstances existed under these facts, the majority makes two distinct errors that "cut[] away the core of the Fourth Amendment's protections, in a way the Supreme Court has never sanctioned[.]" United States v. Juan Benet Johnson, 170 F.3d 708, 718 (7th Cir. 1999). First, the majority dilutes the requirement that officers assess the reliability of an anonymous tip. Second, it fails to give meaning to the rule that officers cannot benefit from exigent circumstances that they themselves create.
¶ 47. I address first the constitutional implications of the knock and talk technique. Then, I address in turn the two distinct errors of the majority that cut at the core of Fourth Amendment protections.
II
¶ 48. The home occupies a special place in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 748 (1984). Warrantless searches of homes are presumptively unreasonable. Id. at 748-49. In 1948, the United States Supreme Court cogently described the rationale for requiring officers to procure a warrant *334prior to entering a home. It emphasized the role of the neutral and detached magistrate:
The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.
Anne Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948).
¶ 49. Here, as with the other two cases decided today, officers engaged in the competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime chose not to seek a warrant. Instead, they opted to go to a suspected drug house and perform a "knock and talk."
¶ 50. A recent commentator has posited that perfunctory review by courts of law enforcement's use of the knock and talk procedure to circumvent the warrant requirement "has severely limited the Fourth Amendment protection afforded to homes, despite the Supreme Court's stance that homes are heavily protected." Craig M. Bradley, "Knock and Talk" and the Fourth Amendment, 84 Ind. L.J. 1099, 1099 (2009). He asserts that the " '[kjnock and talk' has become a talisman before which the Fourth Amendment 'fades away and disappears.'" Id. at 1127.2
*335¶ 51. Likewise, courts have been critical of the knock and talk procedure. In Hayes v. State, 794 N.E.2d 492, 497 (Ind. App. 2003), the court opined that "[k]nock and talk might more aptly be named 'knock and enter,' because it is usually the officer's goal not merely to talk but to conduct a warrantless search of the premises." It explained that "[w]hile not per se unlawful, the knock and talk procedure 'pushes the envelope' and can easily be misused." Id.
¶ 52. It is curious that the majority chooses to explain the knock and talk procedure with a quotation from the Seventh Circuit case United States v. Juan Benet Johnson, 170 F.3d 708. See majority op., ¶ 7 n.5.3 The Johnson court was critical of the use of the knock *336and talk procedure by Milwaukee police officers who lacked probable cause to secure a warrant. It explained: "We do not hold today that the 'knock and talk' technique is automatically unconstitutional. Nevertheless . . . the police themselves must recognize the inherent limits in this more informal way of proceeding." Id. at 720 (emphasis added).
¶ 53. The Seventh Circuit is right. Law enforcement officers must recognize the limitations of this more informal way of attempting to gain entry to a home. The three cases decided today demonstrate that this court as well must recognize the limitations of the knock and talk procedure.
¶ 54. In any given case, there is a temptation to stretch and twist the exceptions to the warrant requirement to fit the facts. Often, the court will explain that the case presents a "close call," but an exception to the warrant requirement applies. The exception stretches a little further, and next time it will likely be stretched again. Over time, the narrowly defined exceptions to the Fourth Amendment become the rule.
¶ 55. A court that it is unwilling to provide a check on unconstitutional evidence gathering does a disfavor to law enforcement and citizens alike. It abandons its role and sends the clear message to law enforcement that no one is at the helm. When the players on a team learn that the referee will never call foul, there remains little incentive to play within the rules.
¶ 56. Despite reiterating that warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable, this court has suppressed evidence procured during a warrantless home search only two times in the last 10 years.4
*337Today, this court ratifies three more warrantless home searches, based on three different exceptions to the warrant requirement. With this track record and the failure of the courts to place meaningful limitations on the knock and talk technique, I fear that the presumption that warrantless home searches are unreasonable has become an example of a rule that has been swallowed by its exceptions.
Ill
¶ 57. The majority errs when it dilutes the requirement that officers assess the reliability of an anonymous tip. It relies heavily on the fact that the informant jeopardized his anonymity by walking into the police station, rather that relaying the tip over the phone. Majority op., ¶ 28.
¶ 58. Yet, that fact alone is not sufficient indicia of reliability to establish probable cause. Wisconsin courts require additional evidence of the reliability of a tip even when it comes from a confidential informant, known to police officers, who has provided reliable information in the past. State v. Romero, 2009 WI 32, ¶ 26, 317 Wis. 2d 12, 765 N.W.2d 756. Independent corroboration of the reliability of the tip is required.
¶ 59. The majority is correct that corroboration of innocent, although significant details may provide indicia of the reliability of an anonymous tip. I agree with the majority that Robinson's name, address, and telephone number are "innocent" details corroborated by the officers prior to their decision to kick in Robinson's door.
¶ 60. However, the corroboration of innocent details is not enough. To support a determination that the anonymous informant is reliable, the details must also be "significant."
*338¶ 61. Unlike the majority, I cannot conclude that the details about Robinson's name, address, and cell phone number are "significant." Various individuals likely have access to this type of identifying information about all of us.
¶ 62. The innocent details provided by this anonymous informant are a far cry from the innocent details that the Supreme Court relied on in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), to corroborate an anonymous tip. In Gates, an anonymous letter asserted that Gates was planning a trip to Florida to pick up drugs, and the letter provided details, including date, time, and mode of transportation, of this trip. Id. at 213. The letter's detailed predictions were corroborated by the authorities. Based on these corroborated details, a magistrate issued a warrant to search Gates' car. Id. On review, the Supreme Court indicated that the tipster had insight into Gates' plan. The Court explained: "It is enough, for purposes of assessing probable cause, that corroboration through other sources of information reduced the chances of a reckless or prevaricating tale, thus providing a substantial basis for crediting" the anonymous tip.5 Id. at 244-45.
¶ 63. Similarly, in State v. Williams, an anonymous caller described the scene of a purported crime in great detail, including the location of the vehicle, a general description of the vehicle, and the layout of the surroundings. 2001 WI 21, ¶ 39, 241 Wis. 2d 631, 623 N.W.2d 106. The police arrived four minutes later and corroborated those details. Because the caller could describe the scene with such specific detail, it was reasonable to conclude that the caller was recently at *339the scene and in a position to observe the illegal activity. The Williams court explained that its decision conformed with Gates, because "[w]here other indicia of reliability exist, predictive information is not necessary to test an anonymous tipster's veracity[.]" Id., ¶ 42.
¶ 64. In both Gates and Williams, the corroboration of innocent but significant details provided indicia of reliability for the uncorroborated assertions of criminal conduct. The "corroboration" in this case is of an entirely different nature. The fact that the anonymous informant accurately provided Robinson's identifying information is not indicia that the informant has insight into any criminal behavior. It corroborated only that the anonymous informant knew Robinson, or perhaps knew of Robinson.
¶ 65. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause. Yet, the Court has held that the kinds of innocent details provided here are insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. Rather than containing "significant" details, the anonymous tip in this case looks like the type of "bare-bones tip" that was rejected in Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000).
¶ 66. In J.L., an anonymous caller reported to the Miami-Dade Police that "a young black male standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun." Id. at 268. Officers corroborated details about the suspect's identity, but they frisked the young man without corroborating that he was carrying a gun. The State argued that "the tip was reliable because its description of the suspect's visible attributes proved accurate: There really was a young black male wearing a plaid shirt at the bus stop."6 Id. at 271.
*340¶ 67. The Court determined that "the Fourth Amendment is not so easily satisfied." Id. at 273. It explained that an anonymous tip accurately describing the suspect's location and appearance "is of course reliable in this limited sense: It will help the police correctly identify the person whom the tipster means to accuse. Such a tip, however, does not show that the tipster has knowledge of concealed criminal activity." Id. at 272. To constitute reasonable suspicion, a tip must "be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person." Id.
¶ 68. Similar to the tip in J.L., the anonymous tip here provided information sufficient to identify the person that the tipster meant to accuse. However, it did not demonstrate that the tipster had any knowledge of concealed criminal activity. I conclude that corroboration of innocent details provided by this bare-bones tip did not provide these officers with reasonable suspicion, much less probable cause.
IV
¶ 69. Like its determination about probable cause, the majority's analysis of exigent circumstances is also incompatible with controlling law. The majority recognizes that under Wisconsin law, officers cannot justify a warrantless home entry based on exigent circumstances that they create. See State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, ¶ 28 n.7, 233 Wis. 2d 280, 607 N.W.2d 621 ("It is also important to note that this is not a situation *341in which the exigency was created by the police themselves, which would generally not justify a warrantless search of a home.") However, citing a Second Circuit opinion that has been roundly criticized,7 the majority determines that "when law enforcement agents act in an entirely lawful manner, they do not impermissibly create exigent circumstances." Majority op., ¶ 32 (citing United States v. MacDonald, 916 F.2d 766, 771 (2d Cir. 1990)).
¶ 70. The majority's logic appears to be as follows: We know that officers cannot benefit from manufacturing exigent circumstances, thereby circumventing the warrant requirement. However, MacDonald holds that officers do not manufacture exigent circumstances when they are in a lawful place. Given that the officers were executing a lawful knock and talk, it must not have been their knock and announcement that created the exigency. Majority op., ¶ 32. Therefore, someone else must have created the exigency. It must have been Robinson, who invited the police to announce their *342presence by asking "Who's there?" and who ran from the door rather than answering it. Id.
¶ 71. The MacDonald decision is not supported by the law of Wisconsin. See Hughes, 233 Wis. 2d 280, ¶ 28 n.7. Further, it is contrary to the case law of the Seventh Circuit and other jurisdictions.
¶ 72. In a recent decision, the Seventh Circuit explained that it is lawful "for the government to knock on the front door of [a] home and ask to come in." Ellis, 499 F.3d at 692. However, "once [the resident] said no, the government could not save its case by kicking in the side door." Id.
¶ 73. The facts in the Ellis case are very similar to the facts before the court today. There, five Milwaukee officers decided to perform a knock and talk at a suspected drug house. When officers arrived at the home, they knew that the registered occupant had two prior drug convictions and that an unknown drug supplier had visited the house a week earlier. Id. at 690. Ellis answered the door, but he refused to consent to the officers' warrantless entry. Id. at 688.
¶ 74. Officer Lopez was identified as the officer who was standing at the side of the house. Id. The facts reflect that what he heard was not mere movement in the house. Id. Rather, he heard "a person running up and down the stairs." Id. "Hearing [the] movement, Officer Lopez concluded that the occupants in the home were trying to destroy drugs." Id. He made the decision to break down the door and enter to prevent the destruction of evidence. Id.
¶ 75. The Seventh Circuit held that, under those facts, the officers could not justify their warrantless home entry based upon an exigency that they had created by informing the occupants of their presence:
*343It was the government's decision to inform the occupants of the 40th Street home that they were targets of a government investigation when the government knocked on the front door and asked for consent to come into the home. The government took a gamble hoping that the occupants would consent to their entry or would open the door revealing contraband in plain sight.
Id. at 692.
¶ 76. The court explained that "once Ellis refused to consent, the occupants knew of the government's investigation of the home and so the government was concerned that the occupants might destroy any drugs that could be in the home." Id. It acknowledged that "[d]rugs are an easily destroyable form of evidence and therefore an officer's suspicions may be raised when he or she hears movement." Id. at 691. Further, "Knocking on a door will result in movement in any home because an occupant will move to the door to see who is knocking and possibly to answer the door." Id. However, the court admonished, "it was the government's choice to reveal itself to the home occupants by engaging in a 'knock and talk' investigation and its decision backfired." Id. at 692.
¶ 77. "[T]he problem in this case," it explained, "is that the officers and agents lacked a warrant when they approached the home and utilized tactics that, if allowed to go unchecked, would eliminate the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement for a home with any connection to drugs." Id. at 691. "If we affirm the district court's decision [that exigent circumstances were present], we have effectively created a situation in which the police have no reason to obtain a warrant when they want to search a home with any type of connections to drugs." Id.
*344¶ 78. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals employed a similar analysis in United States v. Coles, 437 F.3d 361 (3d Cir. 2006). There, officers were conducting surveillance on a motel room due to suspected drug activity. After knocking on the door and announcing their presence, they heard the "sounds of rustling and running footsteps," and they attempted to open the door using an electronic passkey. Id. at 364. Although the officers' attempt to open the door failed, Coles eventually opened the door and permitted the officers to enter.
¶ 79. In determining whether exigent circumstances were present, the court emphasized that "the officers decided to enter room 511 without a warrant." Id. at 370. "It was that decision to conduct a warrantless entry and search of the room, without any urgent need to do so, that impermissibly created the very exigency relied upon by the government in this case." Id.
¶ 80. The Third Circuit concluded that the officers could not justify their entry with an exigency that did not exist before officers decided to alert the occupants to their presence:
We emphasize that the record reveals no urgency or need for the officers to take immediate action, prior to the officers' decision to knock on Coles's hotel room door and demand entry. It is, of course, true that once the officers knocked on the door and announced, "open the door, this is the police," they heard sounds indicating that evidence was being destroyed. But that exigency did not arise naturally or from reasonable police investigative tactics. Quite to the contrary, the officers, after their pretextual announcements had failed to gain entry to room 511, deliberately created the exigency by knocking on the door to room 511 and demanding entry.
Id. at 371.
*345¶ 81. Like these other courts, I conclude that the MacDonald analysis, which has not been previously adopted in Wisconsin, does not adequately safeguard Fourth Amendment rights. Because I conclude that the officers did not have probable cause and any exigency that existed when Robinson refused to open the door was created by the police, I determine that the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement does not apply. The warrantless search of Robinson's apartment was unconstitutional, and the evidence seized during this search should be suppressed.
¶ 82. For the reasons stated above, I respectfully dissent.
¶ 83. I am authorized to state that Chief Justice SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON joins this dissent.

 United States v. MacDonald, 916 F.2d 766, 771 (2d Cir. 1990).

 [T]here is a large swath of police activity that intrudes into dwellings that has been widely allowed by the courts and that often renders the search and arrest warrant requirements nugatory... . Under "knock and talk," police go to people's residences, with or without probable cause, and knock on the door to obtain plain views of the interior *335of the house, to question the residents, to seek consent to search, and/or to arrest without a warrant, often based on what they discover during the "knock and talk." When combined with such other exceptions to the warrant requirement as "plain view," consent, and search incident to arrest, "knock and talk" is a powerful investigative technique.
Craig M. Bradley, "Knock and Talk" and the Fourth Amendment, 84 Ind. L.J. 1099, 1099 (2009).

 In United States v. Juan Benet Johnson, 170 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 1999), the court explained that the knock and talk procedure was often employed by officers in the hopes that they would be able to conduct a warrantless home entry:
[I]n a "knock and talk," the police approach a house or apartment in which they suspect drug dealing is occurring. They listen outside the door for a brief period of time, and then they knock on the door and attempt to persuade whoever answers to give them permission to enter. If consent is forthcoming, they enter and interview the occupants of the place; if it is not, they try to see from their vantage point at the door whether drug paraphernalia is in plain view. If it is, then they made a warrantless entry. As this description makes plain, the "knock and talk" procedure typically does not involve the prior issuance of a warrant.

 State v. Sanders, 2008 WI 85, 311 Wis. 2d 257, 752 N.W.2d 713; State v. Knapp, 2005 WI 127, 285 Wis. 2d 86, 700 N.W.2d 899.

 Unlike an officer's on-the-spot probable cause determination, an issuing-magistrate's probable cause determination is presumptively reasonable.

 Similarly, an amici argued that "a stop and frisk should be permitted 'when (1) an anonymous tip provides a description of *340a particular person at a particular location illegally carrying a concealed firearm, (2) police promptly verify the pertinent details of the tip except the existence of the firearm, and (3) there are no factors that cast doubt on the reliability of the tip....'" Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 271 (2000).

 United States v. MacDonald, 916 F.2d 766 (2d Cir. 1990). In dissent, Judge Kearse concluded that "[w]e should not endorse such contrivances by law enforcement officials in their efforts to circumvent the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement." Id. at 776. The dissent's analysis was cited and adopted in United States v. Coles, 437 F.3d 361 (3d Cir. 2006). The Fifth Circuit and the Seventh Circuit have also rejected the assertion that officers do not manufacture exigent circumstances when they are in a lawful place. See United States v. Richard, 994 F.2d 244 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Ellis, 499 F.3d 686 (7th Cir. 2007). See also Jacqueline Bryks, Exigent Circumstances and Warrantless Home Entries: United States v. MacDonald, 57 Brook. L. Rev. 307, 312 (1991) (concluding that "the Second Circuit should revisit this area in order to shape an exigent circumstances exception more consistent with the Fourth Amendment.").