State v. Campbell
300 P.3d 72, 297 Kan. 273 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement does not apply when police create the exigency by engaging in conduct that is itself an unreasonable violation of the Fourth Amendment. Such a violation occurs when an officer conducting a 'knock and talk' exceeds the scope of a private citizen's implied license by affirmatively concealing their identity to entice an occupant to open the door.
Facts:
- Officer Thomas Nible went to James Campbell's third-floor apartment to investigate a noise complaint regarding Campbell's car.
- As he approached the apartment, Officer Nible smelled burning marijuana and heard at least two male voices coming from an open window.
- To ensure the occupants would open the door, Nible positioned himself to the side, out of view, and covered the door's peephole with his hand.
- Nible then knocked on the apartment door.
- Campbell opened the door partway, holding a silver handgun at about waist level, pointed in Nible's general direction.
- Upon seeing the officer, Campbell looked surprised and immediately tried to shut the door.
- Feeling he could not safely retreat, Nible used his shoulder to force the door open and enter the apartment.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Kansas charged James Campbell with multiple drug and firearm offenses in the Riley County District Court (trial court).
- Campbell filed a motion to suppress evidence found in his apartment, arguing the warrantless entry was unconstitutional.
- The district court denied the motion, finding the officer's entry was justified by exigent circumstances.
- After a bench trial, the district court convicted Campbell of most of the charges.
- Campbell (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Kansas Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, erroneously finding that Campbell had failed to preserve his argument that the officer created the exigency.
- Campbell petitioned the Kansas Supreme Court for review, and the petition was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement permit a warrantless entry into a home when the exigency (an occupant answering the door with a firearm) was created by a police officer who, during a 'knock and talk,' concealed his presence and covered the door's peephole?
Opinions:
Majority - Moritz, J.
No. The exigent circumstances exception does not apply because the officer created the exigency through unreasonable conduct that violated the Fourth Amendment. The court applied the test from Kentucky v. King, which holds that a warrantless entry based on a police-created exigency is only permissible if the police conduct preceding the exigency was reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. A 'knock and talk' is generally permissible because it falls within the implied social license for any citizen to approach a door and knock. However, Officer Nible exceeded this license by affirmatively concealing his identity and covering the peephole. This conduct was not something a 'private citizen might do' and therefore constituted an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Because this unconstitutional conduct provoked Campbell to answer the door armed, creating the alleged exigency, the officer could not rely on that exigency to justify his warrantless entry.
Dissenting - Biles, J.
Yes. The exigent circumstances exception should apply because the officer's actions of covering the peephole and concealing his presence did not violate or threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment. The dissent argues that this conduct was a permissible police 'ruse' that courts have upheld in other contexts. Since the officer’s actions before the exigency arose were not unconstitutional, the subsequent exigent circumstance—the threat to officer safety posed by Campbell's handgun—was a valid justification for the warrantless entry. The majority's reliance on Florida v. Jardines is misplaced, as that case involved a drug-sniffing dog, which is a far more intrusive search than covering a peephole.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'police-created exigency' doctrine under Kansas law, aligning it with the U.S. Supreme Court's standard in Kentucky v. King. By defining an officer's deceptive concealment of identity during a 'knock and talk' as an unreasonable Fourth Amendment violation, the court narrows the scope of permissible police tactics in initiating consensual encounters at a person's home. The ruling strengthens privacy protections within the home, particularly for lawful gun owners who may react defensively to an unidentified and concealed person at their door. Future cases involving 'knock and talks' will be scrutinized more closely for any police conduct that exceeds the implied license granted to ordinary visitors.
