SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

The occupant voluntarily and knowingly opens the door in
response to a request, but not a threat or command, such as
in a “knock and talk” (see above);
The officers have a search warrant; or
The offices have probable cause and exigent circumstances
justifying the lack of a warrant.
© 2011 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved
(United States v. Washington (9 th Cir. 2004) 387 F.3 rd
1060, 1070-1071; officers refused to allow defendant to
shut the door during an otherwise lawful “knock and talk,”
making the inside of defendant’s apartment clearly visible.)
Using a ruse to trick people outside during a narcotics investigation
at an apartment complex, for the purpose of confronting as many
people as they could lure outside, resulted in the defendant’s illegal
detention when he was surrounded by a team of officers all dressed
in raid gear. “A deception used to gain entry into a home and a
ruse that lures a suspect out of a residence is a distinction without
much difference. . . .” (People v. Reyes (2000) 83 Cal.App.4 th 7,
12-13.)
Use of an administrative, or “inspection” warrant, issued by a court
for the purpose of regulating building, fire, safety, plumbing,
electrical, health, labor or zoning codes, does not justify a
concurrent entry (i.e., entering with the inspectors) by police to
make an arrest when the police attempt to use the lower standard of
proof needed to obtain an administrative warrant as their
justification for entering. If an entry is effected for the purpose of
arresting the occupant, an arrest warrant will have to be obtained.
(Alexander v. City and County of San Francisco (1994) 29 F.3 rd
1355.)
Posing as a potential buyer of a residence, thus gaining entry for
the purpose of making observations of illegal activity, is an illegal
ruse. (People v. De Caro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3 rd 454.)
But see People v. Lucatero (2008) 166 Cal.App.4 th 1110,
below.
A real estate agent who, upon showing a house to potential buyers,
observed an abnormal amount of electronic equipment and
suspected that the items were stolen. She called police who made
a warrantless entry with the agent and, after an extensive search,
seized stolen property. Although criticizing De Caro to some
extent, the Court still held the warrantless entry to be illegal. The
Court held that the agent, while authorized to show prospective
527