The Effect of a Case on Law Enforcement and Future Investigations

Overview
In July 2003, Sheriff’s Deputy Todd Shanks of Multnomah County Oregon was performing a routine traffic stop on a vehicle driven by William Barrett. During this stop, Shanks arrested Barrett because of an outstanding warrant and then searched the car. A pressure-cooker found in the trunk was believed to be used in the making of methamphetamine. Barrett informed Shanks that the owner of the pressure-cooker was “Gunner Crapser,” and that he could be found at the Econolodge Motel in a room registered to a woman named Summer Twilligear (FindLaw, 2007, Factual and Procedural Background section, para. 2). Deputy Shanks quickly learned that there was an outstanding warrant for a “Gunner Crapser” but to not confuse the wanted man, whose name was not actually “Gunner Crapser,” with someone else using this name.
Once the motel manager confirmed that a Summer Twilligear had rented room 114, Deputy Shanks, Sergeant Walls, Deputy Galloway, Deputy Phifer, and Deputy Timms went to the hotel to see whether this “Gunner Crapser” was the wanted man, and to attempt a “knock and talk” as a way to gain consent to search the room and look for signs of methamphetamine activity (FindLaw, 2007, Factual and Procedural Background section, para. 4). All of the officers were in uniform with their guns visible besides Deputy Timms who was in plain clothes with a concealed weapon.
Sergeant Walls placed himself behind the motel room as a precaution, while Shanks knocked on the door of room 114 with the other officers. Shanks noticed a woman looking through the blinds from inside the room and he asked if she would open the door and speak with them, she nodded and closed the blinds. For about two minutes, the officers heard things moving around inside...

... middle of paper ...

...w enforcement to solve cases, is highly dependent on my ability to investigate and interpret evidence. Thus, if I did not know about the laws of a “knock and talk,” I could potentially ruin a case by getting something thrown out due to my failure of “knock and talk”. In other words, this case will highly affect any investigator in trying to solve a case. The rules of a “knock and talk” are the same as before, this case just elaborated on them. In my field this case will constantly affect the way I handle and talk with subjects near their home. I will also be subjected to the many details necessary to show that a suspect acted voluntarily and consensually in a “knock and talk” as well as be very careful and alert of my own body movements and words. This entire case provides a lot of information to remember about “knock and talks” that will be helpful in the long run.