246 N.C. App. 170 - State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]n North Carolina, law enforcement officers may approach a front door to conduct 'knock and talk' investigations that do not rise to the level of a Fourth Amendment search.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 251 N.C. App. 274 - State v. Kirkman · 259 N.C. App. 708 - State v. Stanley

2. “We begin with the knock and talk doctrine. Because no search of the curtilage occurs when an officer is in a place where the public is allowed to be, such as at the front door of a house , officers are permitted to approach the front door of a home, knock, and engage in consensual conversation with the occupants.... Put another way, law enforcement may do what occupants of a home implicitly permit anyone to do, which is approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave. Importantly, law enforcement may not use a knock and talk as a pretext to search the home's curtilage. No one is impliedly invited to enter the protected premises of the home in order to do nothing but conduct a search. Likewise, the knock and talk doctrine does not permit law enforcement to approach any exterior door to a home . An officer's implied right to knock and talk extends only to the entrance of the home that a reasonably respectful citizen unfamiliar with the home would believe is the appropriate door at which to knock.... This limitation is necessary to prevent the knock and talk doctrine from swallowing the core Fourth Amendment protection of a home's curtilage. Without this limitation, law enforcement freely could wander around one's home searching for exterior doors and, in the process, search any area of a home's curtilage without a warrant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 259 N.C. App. 708 - State v. Stanley

3. “[T]he knocker on the front door is treated as an invitation or license to attempt an entry, justifying ingress to the home by solicitors, hawkers and peddlers of all kinds.... This implicit license typically permits the visitor to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave. Complying with the terms of that traditional invitation does not require fine-grained legal knowledge; it is generally managed without incident by the Nation's Girl Scouts and trick-or-treaters. Thus, a police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock, precisely because that is no more than any private citizen might do.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 259 N.C. App. 708 - State v. Stanley