{"id":7543,"date":"2023-10-27T15:38:48","date_gmt":"2023-10-27T15:38:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/?p=7543"},"modified":"2026-09-17T06:41:00","modified_gmt":"2026-09-17T13:41:00","slug":"can-officers-lie-during-knock-and-talks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/?p=7543","title":{"rendered":"Can Officers Lie During Knock and Talks?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The question of the day is: Can officers lie during a knock and talk<\/a>? <\/strong><\/p>\n

T<\/strong>he answer is, \u201cYes.\u201d\u00a0 Certainly officers are not required to share all their inner secrets about an investigation with an occupant.\u00a0 So that’s not a problem.<\/p>\n

Courts have upheld deception during investigations for centuries.\u00a0 But I want to transition to another related question. And that is, Can officers lie to get into a home <\/strong>to see evidence and so forth?<\/p>\n

Can police lie about why they want to come into a home?<\/h2>\n

\u00a0And there is a general rule for known officers.\u00a0 These are not undercover officers.\u00a0 These are known officers, that the occupants know they’re dealing with the police. The general rule is that officers should not lie about their primary purpose<\/strong> about coming into the home.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Let me give you some examples.\u00a0 In an infamous case, officers told the occupants that there was a bomb planted somewhere in the building, that they got a bomb threat, and they want to look for it.\u00a0 What the cops were really after was plain view evidence<\/a> of drugs.\u00a0 Well, they get into the apartment to look for the bomb, they find drug evidence, and we go from there.\u00a0 The court easily suppressed that evidence, because the primary purpose was a lie.<\/strong>\u00a0 No rational person would say \u201cno\u201d to the police after hearing that there’s a bomb somewhere in the building.<\/p>\n

Is a ruse about identity theft enough to void consent to enter?<\/h2>\n

Let me give another example.\u00a0 Officers were investigating disability fraud.\u00a0 The occupant was suspected of being highly mobile, and he was lying about his disability and so forth.\u00a0 They wanted to catch him on camera inside his home moving around with no issues.\u00a0 They told him that he was the victim of identity theft.\u00a0 This was a lie.\u00a0 There was no evidence of him being the victim of an ID theft.\u00a0 Based on this, though, the occupant invites them in, and they secretly record him moving around and so forth and use that against him in his disability disability fraud case.\u00a0 That was suppressed, because the primary purpose was a lie,<\/strong> that they were there about ID theft.<\/p>\n

\u00a0A third example follows.\u00a0 Cops told the suspect that they were following up on a two year old burglary that he reported.\u00a0 He was the victim of the burglary, but that was a lie.\u00a0 The case was closed, there were no leads, and so forth.\u00a0 What they were really after was child porn evidence.\u00a0 They wanted to see if there was something in plain view.\u00a0 So they told him this and they wanted to talk to him further inside the home.\u00a0 So the occupant invited them in, and they’re acting like they’re taking more information about stuff that was stolen.\u00a0 All the while they’re looking around the home for the plain view evidence.\u00a0 That was suppressed; the primary purpose was a lie<\/strong>, there was no investigation.<\/p>\n

Can officers lie about whether someone is a suspect?<\/h2>\n

\u00a0But compare it to this case, officers were investigating a burglary.\u00a0 And the occupant was the target.\u00a0 They were hoping to get into the home to see if there was plain view evidence of the property stolen.\u00a0 Now, when they went to his house, they said, Look, we’re investigating a burglary.\u00a0 And he asked \u201cAm I a suspect?\u201d and the cops lied and said, \u201cNo, you’re not.\u201d\u00a0 He says, ‘Come on in.\u201d\u00a0 And while they’re taking the report, and so forth, and asking him questions, they see plain view evidence.\u00a0 That was upheld as constitutional, because the primary purpose was not a lie.<\/strong>\u00a0 They were there for the burglary.\u00a0 But the secondary purpose, of course, was also to see if they saw plain view evidence.<\/p>\n

What do you tell a homeowner who asks why you are there?<\/h2>\n

\u00a0So this is just about telling somebody why you’re there.\u00a0 Remember, though, if you remain silent about why you’re really there, saying you just want to talk, that\u2019s not the primary purpose.\u00a0 If you’re telling the person the purpose of the talk, and they ask you why you’re there, you should tell them something related to the primary purpose.\u00a0 You can be general about it.<\/p>\n

\u00a0But be careful because that’s what the courts are looking for here.\u00a0 When you’re dealing with the home, it is the most protected area under the Fourth Amendment, and courts are very cautious about you lying to get into the home.\u00a0 If they grant you too much room here, they feel it could be abused.<\/p>\n

\u00a0I hope this helps.\u00a0 It’s kind of an interesting little question, so I wanted to expand on it.\u00a0 Keep your questions coming.\u00a0 And until next time, stay safe.<\/p>\n

Related from Blue to Gold<\/h2>\n