Approximately six years ago, three officers with the High Point Police Department in High Point, North Carolina, drove to the home of Quashaun Melsun Reel. They were following up on two complaints made to their chief’s office and Crime Stoppers about drug sales taking place at the address, and they planned to conduct a “knock and talk,” walking up to Reel’s door and then speaking with him about the complaints.
According to trial court findings, after parking, Officer Brian Hilliard, a member of the police department’s street crimes unit, first approached and tried to speak to a woman who had parked outside Reel’s home and was walking towards his residence. When she did not respond, he followed her to the door of the home, which Reel briefly opened to let the woman inside and then “slammed shut.” While the door was opened, “Hilliard detected the strong odor of marijuana,” which he determined gave him probable cause to enter without a warrant. He also believed Reel and the woman would rush to destroy evidence “if he did not immediately gain entry.”
The officers then “began to give commands for the door to be opened,” followed by an attempt to “shoulder” it open while Reel “attempt[ed] to push the door closed.” Following this, one of the officers with Hilliard kicked in Reel’s door. Inside, they found “[a] bag of marijuana, a bag of pills and a digital scale … in plain view,” according to the trial court. Reel was ultimately charged with several crimes, including possession with intent to sell or deliver schedule I and schedule VI controlled substances. In the trial court, Reel’s legal team filed a motion to suppress the evidence, contending that the officers had violated the Fourth Amendment, which outlaws “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Specifically, they argued that Hilliard needed a warrant before he walked up to Reel’s door, because the purpose of the so-called “walk and talk” was to gather evidence about Reel’s activities, not to simply have a brief chat.
North Carolina Superior Court Judge William A. Wood denied Reel’s motion, concluding that “Officer Hilliard’s approach to the front entrance of” Reel’s home “was legal in every way,” and that Hilliard and the other officers “had both probable cause and exigent circumstances to force entry.” Reel reached a plea agreement with the state under which he pled guilty to five of the charges, but he preserved his right to appeal the judge’s denial of his motion to suppress.
After sentencing, Reel appealed the denial to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which affirmed Wood’s decision by a 2-1 vote. The judges in the majority acknowledged that the Supreme Court held in 2013’s Florida v. Jardines that the officers in that case had violated the Fourth Amendment when they brought a drug-detecting dog to a front porch without a warrant, but said that “knock and talk” visits remain “constitutionally permissible” because they involve police officers doing what any member of the public may do: “approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave.” Reel appealed again, but the Supreme Court of North Carolina also affirmed the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress.
In March, Reel filed his petition for review with the Supreme Court, urging the justices to address the lower courts’ “struggle[] to properly apply Jardines.” In that 2013 case, Reel explained, the court recognized that police officers have a right to approach the curtilage of a home – that is, the area immediately surrounding it and associated with it, like a front porch – in order to speak with the resident, like any member of the public might do. However, it also held that officers need a warrant for such a visit when the purpose is to gather information and potentially collect evidence. Many “walk and talk” investigations stem from the goal of “gathering incriminating evidence,” according to Reel, but lower courts are failing to distinguish them from permissible police visits. Such courts, Reel wrote, “are very confused how they analyze implied license to enter a home’s curtilage, knock and talk investigations, and law enforcement purpose.”
Initially, North Carolina waived its right to respond to Reel’s petition for review, but the justices requested a response in April. In that brief, which was filed in June, the state contends that there actually is no “doctrinal confusion among lower appellate courts” on the question of how to assess an officer’s purpose for conducting a “walk and talk” in order to determine whether the officer was behaving like any other visitor or if, instead, the officer was conducting a search of the area. “The alleged division and confusion is illusory,” according to the brief. “Of the nine courts cited by [Reel], four explicitly discuss officer purpose. As for the other five, the cases cited do not reveal any doctrinal division or confusion as to an officer’s purpose.”
Reel v. North Carolina is scheduled to be considered by the justices at their “long conference” on Sept. 28.
