We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.
  • Celebrating 20 Years of Training Excellence 2004-2024

Consensual Encounters

Recently, the California Supreme Court had occasion to consider whether officers need some suspicion to conduct a “knock and talk.” The question presented to the court was whether an anonymous tip could provide that suspicion. The court squarely held what we at the training bulletin have always believed and taught, a consensual encounter is just that, consensual. Officers need no reason at all to talk to a citizen, no matter where that citizen is located.


Officers received an anonymous tip that a “Juan Rivera,” who may have had an outstanding warrant, was at a particular location. The officers did not run a record check or otherwise confirm the tip. Officers went to the location and spoke with a woman who identified herself as the homeowner. The officer asked whether she knew Juan Rivera. The woman replied that she did, and told the officers to “come inside.” The officers then asked the woman for consent to a search of her residence. Not shockingly, they found the suspect, Juan Rivera, in the backyard sitting in a shed. The officers asked him whether he had any weapons. When the suspect said he had a knife, he was ordered out of the shed and arrested. He had a knife under his shirt. The officers then confirmed he had an outstanding arrest warrant and was a parolee.


In People v. Rivera (2007) 41 Cal.4th 304, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence against him arguing that the anonymous, uncorroborated tip was insufficient to justify his detention and search.

The United States Supreme Court, in Florida v. J.L. (200) 529 U.S. 266, held that a detention based on an anonymous, uncorroborated tip violates the Fourth Amendment.

In that case, an unidentified caller told police that a young African-American man in a plaid shirt standing at a particular bus stop was carrying a gun. The officers knew nothing other than that. They knew nothing more about either the suspect or the tipster. The court held that because a detention is based upon reasonable suspicion, an anonymous tip cannot support a detention without some other corroboration.

Moreover, the California Supreme Court, in People v. Sanders (2003) 31 Cal.4th 318, held that officers must be aware of a defendant’s parole search condition to justify a warrantless search on that basis.

Defendant argued that because the officers used an uncorroborated tip to go to that location and did not know he was a parolee, the evidence should be suppressed.


A “knock and talk: is a well accepted investigatory procedure where officers go to the door of a residence or hotel/motel, and make contact with the residents. It is settled that a knock and talk does not implicate the Fourth Amendment.

So do officers need to substantiate or corroborate an anonymous tip before contacting a resident or citizen and seeking consent? The answer is no.

A knock and talk is a consensual encounter. A consensual encounter does not require any type of suspicion or cause. An officer may approach someone on the street or any other public place and contact that person and talk with them if they are willing to do so. There is no Fourth Amendment violation as long as that person would feel free to leave or end the encounter. It is also well-settled that a consensual encounter may also take place at the doorway of a home. Consensual encounters require no articulable suspicion of criminal activity. It is clear then that officers need no suspicion to knock on anyone’s door and seek permission to enter. Therefore the reliability of the tip that led the officers to that location is irrelevant.

Officers in this case used a knock and talk and valid consent by the homeowner to gain entry to the backyard. The court correctly drew a distinction between the entry to the yard and what took place there. It was clear that the officers were at the location lawfully and that they gained valid consent to enter. At that point the court remanded for further hearings to determine whether the detention of the defendant was lawful.

Chuck Gillingham is a veteran prosecutor and regular instructor for the California District Attorney’s Association and the Federal Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. Chuck also teaches the legal portion of Multidisciplinary Child Interviewing for Third Degree Communications, Inc.

  • Effective teaching teams! The presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda
  • This training provided the useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS
  • Incredible training with amazing real world instruction. I have been taking law enforcement classes for over 30 years and by far this is the best presented and most useful.

    —Det. Brian Dale, Portland Police Bureau
  • The information presented was highly relevant to my job and was presented in a manner that was organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • It not often that you go to a training that you really, really want to pay attention to. Because of the high quality information and style of presentation, I knew that if I looked away I was going to miss out.

    —Quinten Graves, Oregon State Police
  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department
  • This was, by far and away the best training I have received in 15 plus years of Law Enforcement. The instructors are experienced, engaging, articulate, and very entertaining. I will be recommending this training to multiple agencies.

    —Mark Paynter, Oregon DOC
  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
  • Your training gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department
  • Your training has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department
  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • This training by far has been the most informative and most effective I've attended. The instructors engaged the students in a manner that made me want to speak my opinion, ask questions, and participate.

    —Julio Ibarra, Merced County Sheriff’s Office