After Portland Police forced their way into Steven Dons' home and were met with gunfire, much was written about the "knock and talk" procedure that led police to Dons' door on January 27.
Put simply, "knock and talk" means the police knock on a suspect's door and ask if it's ok to come in. If the suspect does not enforce his or her constitutional right to ask for a search warrant, the police can come in and obtain evidence. Often, these visits are prompted by anonymous tips from neighbors.
While the police and the Oregonian seem to feel this is a valid tool in the "war on crime," they ignore how easy it may be to set up neighbors--for political, racial, sexual, financial, or other reasons--and have the police enter someone's home on the flimsiest of accusations. The police themselves could create such excuses to enter homes, without the oversight of a judge's signature.
A February 1 article in the Oregonian noted that "the technique leads officers to drugs only half the time, according to court and bureau records," but generally supports knock and talks as legitimate.
Willamette Week's February 4 editorial was more insightful: "Unless they perceive that someone inside the house is in imminent danger, police should back off when an attempt at a knock-and-talk search fails. If the cost of protecting our constitutional rights is that a couple of marijuana growers are allowed to incinerate their plants, so be it." This is a good point, since the "war on drugs" supposedly has the goal of getting drugs off the streets; if drug dealers destroy evidence, isn't that exactly what the police wanted in the first place?
Or is there something else going on, like the lure of cash and property that stand to be gained by asset forfeiture proceedings after arrests are made? The Oregonian reports that in 1996, the Marijuana Task Force seized 42 houses and other property worth over two million dollars.
Other related tactics include pulling people from their homes (see "PIIAC Case #97- 22"). In the February 11 Willamette Week, a tactic referred to by a defense attorney as "sniff and grab" is described. Officers who think they smell marijuana will get the suspect to reach out of their home somehow, to take a business card or close their screen door, and grab them from their homes.
Police claim that Dons had over 50 plants in his basement, but Officer Kim Keist told the Oregonian, "I'm angry at the fact that Steven Dons went to such a degree to protect a couple marijuana plants." How many plants were there? And, on the flip side of Keist's point, to what degree were the police willing to go to seize "a couple marijuana plants," and at what cost?
The March 27 PDXS raises interesting points about knock and talks and the MTF in particular. While there are far more dangerous drugs on the streets, "there isn't a Black Tar Heroin Task Force. . . a Crack Cocaine Task Force...[or] even a Drunk Driving Task Force."
It is clear that the City and the police have made marijuana a high priority, perhaps because most of the time they meet with meek casual smokers willing to let them into their home, thus yielding a high rate of return for little time and effort. Unfortunately, they sometimes have to take all that extra time to get those pesky search warrants from judges.
In a related issue, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to leave intact police procedures involving "no-knock" warrants. A no-knock warrant means just that--police do have a warrant, but crash and enter the suspect's home without announcing themselves. In the disputed case, police in Oregon served a no-knock warrant at the home of a suspect's friend. Police arrested the person in the house for possession of a firearm. His lawsuit against police made it to the 9th Circuit Court, which decided that the police had no evidence that this man would use violence against them and therefore should have knocked. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that hampering police's ability to serve a no-knock warrant is too complicated. Police, they figured, shouldn't be limited by having to prove reasonable suspicion that they will meet with violence. This should frighten anybody who knows what police can do when given authority to break down doors and take people into custody without regard to civil and human rights.
People's Police Report
#14 Table of
Contents
People's Police Report Index
Page
Return to Copwatch
home page