United States v. Carloss
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4547
10th Cir.2016Background
- ATF agent Stephens and Tahlequah police investigator Graves went to a house to question Ralph Carloss based on tips alleging firearms and meth activity; they approached the front door and knocked.
- The property had several professionally printed “No Trespassing/Private Property” signs: three in the yard/driveway and one posted on the front door; the district court found the signs were present that day.
- Officers knocked for "several minutes," heard movement inside, and later met Heather Wilson and then Carloss in the side yard; neither Wilson nor Carloss pointed out the signs or told officers to leave.
- Officers asked to search; Carloss said Dry was the homeowner and offered to get him. When Carloss began to go inside to fetch Dry, officers asked to accompany him and Carloss consented; inside, officers observed drug paraphernalia and residue in Carloss’s room.
- Dry later refused consent, officers left, obtained a warrant based on observed evidence, executed it, and found meth labs, weapons, and ammunition; Carloss pled guilty but preserved the suppression issue on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Carloss' Argument | Government/Officers' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers violated the Fourth Amendment by entering curtilage to knock given posted “No Trespassing” signs | Signs revoked the implied license to approach/knock, so entry was a trespass/search | Knock-and-talk is permitted by an implied license; Jardines preserves knock-and-talks and signs here did not clearly revoke the license | Affirmed — signs did not objectively revoke the implied license; approach/knock lawful |
| Whether Jardines altered precedential support for knock-and-talks | Jardines prevents searches like drug-dog sniffing from porch, but here argued to block knock-and-talks too | Jardines distinguishes searches from ordinary knock-and-talks; it left knock-and-talks valid | Held — Jardines did not prohibit consensual knock-and-talks; officers did not conduct a Jardines-type search |
| Whether officers exceeded the implied license by knocking too long | Prolonged knocking converted approach into an intrusion/search | Officers only waited a short while ("a minute or two"/"several minutes") and heard movement inside, so waiting was reasonable | Held — duration did not exceed the implied license under these facts |
| Whether Carloss’ consent to let officers accompany him inside was voluntary | Consent was coerced/improper because entry began with unlawful intrusion or officers conditioned his reentry | Officers were plainclothed, unarmed, nonthreatening; district court found consent voluntary | Held — district court’s finding of voluntary consent not clearly erroneous; evidence admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (recognizes implied license to approach front door but limits it against investigatory searches from curtilage)
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984) (open fields doctrine; property trespass not necessarily a Fourth Amendment search)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (use of technology to obtain interior details can be a search)
- United States v. Carter, 360 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2004) (knock-and-talk is a consensual encounter, not a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Cruz-Mendez, 467 F.3d 1260 (10th Cir. 2006) (knock-and-talk does not require reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. McDowell, 713 F.3d 571 (10th Cir. 2013) (post-Jardines approval of lawful observations obtained during a knock-and-talk)
- United States v. Pettit, 785 F.3d 1374 (10th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (physical occupation of property for obtaining information can be a search)