WORDS DO HAVE MEANING

Court Draws Proper Conclusion On Man Who Consented To Search

A unanimous Michigan Court of Appeals decision says something basic about
citizen relations with police and about the plain meaning of words: If a
person freely says that police may search his property, the police are not
wrong in doing so.

Such a search, said the court, does not amount to a violation of federal
Fourth Amendment rights -- protecting against "unreasonable searches and
seizures" -- nor does it trespass on the Michigan Constitution's own
prohibition of unconsensual searches.

The case before the court involved a St. Joseph County man suspected of
having illegal drugs on his property. Because police lacked enough evidence
to get a search warrant, they used a "knock and talk" procedure, asking the
suspect to voluntarily submit to a search.

Police went to the man's home, identified themselves, said they had reason
to think he had drugs and asked if they could search. According to the
trial court record, the man gave explicit and implicit consent. When
officers spotted several pounds of marijuana, the man said it was for his
own use. On request, he provided keys to a trailer where officers found
scales, which the man said were for weighing the drug. At that point, he
told the officers to stop searching, which they did until obtaining a
search warrant. The individual eventually was convicted of intent to
deliver marijuana and was given six months in jail.

Writing for the three-judge Court of Appeals panel, Judge Joel P. Hoekstra
of Grand Rapids rejected the defendant's claim that the "knock and talk"
procedure is a violation of the constitutionally protected sanctity of the
home. Nothing in the federal or state constitution, said the court,
precludes a police officer from coming to a home and talking with the
people living there. The fact that the motive is to obtain consent for a
search doesn't make the visit illegal.

Judge Hoekstra, joined by Judges Jeffrey G. Collins and Hilda R. Gage,
wrote that the exchange involved no coercion or threat -- "no indication
that the defendant was not free to end the encounter." That finding,
together with an affirmation of the trial judge's conclusion that consent
was given, resulted in the Court of Appeals upholding the man's conviction.

It was not a blank check, however, nor should it have been. Judge Hoekstra
was careful to warn that a Fourth Amendment issue would arise where a
person approached at home by police "does not feel free to leave or where
consent to search is coerced." The point is crucial. As Judge Hoekstra
wrote, the court could "envision a scenario where the police conduct when
executing a 'knock and talk' procedure . . . results in an unreasonable
search." In the St. Joseph County case, he said, "the facts do not suggest
such a situation." No evidence was presented at trial by the defendant, or
anyone else, to show that he was in any way pressured to consent to a
search. The court also found that the defendant placed no limit on the
scope of the search.

While citizens should applaud the care taken with a central constitutional
right, there should be comparable support for the Court of Appeals'
willingness to let people be responsible for their own words and actions.
To have found otherwise, besides adding a huge new handicap to legitimate
police investigations, would have denied the validity of speech and free
will. An open and free society has to respect both.