logo
Police are at my door. Do I need to answer? What to know if law enforcement knocks in Texas

Police are at my door. Do I need to answer? What to know if law enforcement knocks in Texas

Yahoo3 hours ago

Knock! Knock! Knock! There's a stranger at your doorstep. You rush to the peephole to see who's there.
It's the police. They ask you to open the door.
Your next move could be costly. Do you open the door, ask questions, or ignore them?
Following what prosecutors have described as the "political assassination" of Minnesota State Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband — part of an attack that also injured Sen. John Hoffman and his wife — many Americans are now questioning their legal and practical options in response to the incident.
The suspect in the case, Vance Boelter, 57, was dressed in a police officer's attire, complete with a black tactical vest, and carried a flashlight, as an officer would, according to an affidavit filed in federal court and written by Special Agent Terry Getsch of the FBI. Boelter was also driving an SUV equipped with a fake "POLICE" license plate and "law enforcement-style emergency lights," the affidavit said.
"This is the police. Open the door," Boelter shouted outside at around 2 a.m. on June 14, according to Hoffman's family members, Getsch wrote in the affidavit.
Here's what to know about answering the door for law enforcement in Texas.
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution offers safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures, granting your home the greatest degree of protection. As a result, law enforcement officers cannot enter your residence without valid legal authority.
If the police knock on your door, you're not obligated to answer or let them in. According to legalclarity.org, this tactic, known as a 'knock and talk,' is designed to begin a voluntary conversation, but your participation is entirely optional.
Law enforcement knocking on your door can be intimidating. Most people's first inclination is to answer the door for them. However, that doesn't mean you have to.
Here are five things to keep in mind if police officers knock on your door:
You don't have to open the door unless they have a warrant. If officers don't present a search or arrest warrant, you're not legally obligated to let them in.
Ask if they have a warrant — and see it. If they claim to have one, you can request to see it through a window or have them slide it under the door before opening up.
Don't step outside your home or invite them in unless you want to. Once you open the door or step outside, you may unintentionally waive some of your Fourth Amendment protections.
Stay calm and polite — but say little. You have the right to remain silent. You can simply say, 'I don't wish to speak without a lawyer,' and that's enough.
If they don't have a warrant, they can't enter unless there's an emergency. This includes things like hearing screams, seeing someone in danger, or suspecting a crime is actively happening inside.
According to the Texas Constitution Search & Seizures §9, the law says the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.
According to Texas law, there are situations of "exigent circumstances," also known as warrantless search and seizure in Texas.
Under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the law authorizes officers to enter homes without a warrant in exigent circumstances.
Examples of this include:
Protection of life (first aid, extracting children who appear to be in danger, protecting an undercover officer or informant).
Protection of property (such as extinguishing a fire or stopping a burglary).
Preventing destruction of evidence.
Pursuing a fleeing felon ('hot pursuit').
According to the Texas District & County Attorneys Association, exigent circumstances can justify an officer's initial entry into a residence, especially when the goal is to help someone in danger or ensure public safety.
However, once the immediate emergency is under control, officers are no longer permitted to continue searching without legal authority.
A warrant or another specific exception must be in place to allow further examination of the premises, though officers may secure the location while obtaining one. Notably, the exigent circumstances rule does not create a blanket exception for murder scenes that would permit unrestricted searches; entry is only permitted to assist victims or locate an attacker.
-USA TODAY Network Amanda Lee Myers contributed to this report.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: If police knock on your door, do you need to open? What Texas law says

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Murkowski says she has been "pretty clear" about her concerns with Trump's "big, beautiful bill"
Murkowski says she has been "pretty clear" about her concerns with Trump's "big, beautiful bill"

CBS News

time17 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Murkowski says she has been "pretty clear" about her concerns with Trump's "big, beautiful bill"

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski says she has been "pretty clear" about her concerns over potential cuts President Trump's so-called "big, beautiful bill" would make to Medicaid and food benefits for her constituents in Alaska. In an interview for "CBS Sunday Morning," Murkowski told CBS News senior correspondent Norah O'Donnell that she hasn't given any absolute deal-breakers in the Senate legislation — but she's voiced her reservations about the Medicaid proposals. "I have not given anybody in the administration an absolute, this is my red line, right?" Because I think it's important that every step of the way, I communicate where my concerns are," Murkowski told O'Donnell in the interview airing this weekend. The reconciliation bill — or "one big, beautiful bill," as Mr. Trump and Republicans in Congress have dubbed it — has passed the House, but remains up for debate in the Senate, where some Republicans are pushing for deeper cuts to Medicaid than the House-passed version allows. Medicaid is the entitlement program that offers government-backed health care for both low-income Americans and those with disabilities, with the federal government and states splitting the costs. While the House version adds a new work requirement to Medicaid for childless adults, the Senate wants work requirements to expand to parents of older children. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, provides food benefits to the poorest Americans, and some Senate Republicans are hoping to place more requirements on states. "So I've been pretty clear that when it comes to Medicaid, those cuts that would harm Alaskan beneficiaries, that's not something that I can take home, right? We have some of the highest health care costs in the country. We have 40% of Alaska's kids that are on Medicaid. I want to try to do what we can to address certain aspects of our entitlement spending. We've got to do that. But doing it with the most vulnerable bearing the brunt of that is not the answer," she said. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from North Dakota, wants the reconciliation bill to pass by the July 4 holiday, but that deadline is quickly approaching. Watch more of the interview with Sen. Lisa Murkowski on "CBS Sunday Morning" on Sunday, June 22.

New rule-busting text circulating for Republican megabill
New rule-busting text circulating for Republican megabill

E&E News

time18 minutes ago

  • E&E News

New rule-busting text circulating for Republican megabill

New language being floated for the Republicans' megabill would halt proposed federal regulations that generate financial impacts not explicitly authorized by Congress. Text obtained by POLITICO's E&E News that is currently under review by the Budget Committee would authorize the White House to review all proposed agency rules with 'a non-negligible budgetary effect.' Rules that would spend more than $100 million, and are not directly tied to a law authorizing such spending, would be cut. The text, which could be added to the budget reconciliation bill through an amendment or another procedure, is reminiscent of the 'Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act,' which would give Congress final say over all major federal rules. Advertisement Energy and Natural Resources Chair Mike Lee (R-Utah) has been working on what he calls 'REINS-lite,' a version of the legislation intended to be more budgetary so it conforms with reconciliation rules.

Mahmoud Khalil Must Be Released, Federal Judge Orders
Mahmoud Khalil Must Be Released, Federal Judge Orders

New York Times

time22 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Mahmoud Khalil Must Be Released, Federal Judge Orders

A federal judge ordered the Trump administration on Friday to release Mahmoud Khalil on bail, a ruling that would end a three-month detention for Mr. Khalil, the only high-profile pro-Palestinian demonstrator in the United States who remains in confinement. The ruling is a major victory and relief for Mr. Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and legal permanent U.S. resident who played a leading role in demonstrations at the school's campus last year. Mr. Khalil, whose wife and infant son are U.S. citizens, has not been charged with a crime. Instead, the Trump administration justified holding him by invoking a rarely cited law that allows for the deportation of people who oppose the nation's foreign policy objectives. Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, accused Mr. Khalil of spreading antisemitism. A week after he was arrested, the administration added other allegations against him, saying he had made paperwork errors when he applied for citizenship last year. The judge, Michael E. Farbiarz of Federal District Court in Newark, N.J., had already ruled that Mr. Khalil's detention could not be justified by the foreign-policy law. On Friday, he found that the remaining allegations against Mr. Khalil did not require that he be detained. Mr. Khalil was the first of many students, including other legal permanent U.S. residents, to be targeted by the Trump administration. His lawyers have argued that he was arrested because of his pro-Palestinian speech. He had remained in detention even as several students in similar straits were released. The Trump administration has accused Mr. Khalil of siding with the terrorist group Hamas without providing substantive evidence that he expressed support for the group. Mr. Khalil's lawyers have cited his comments that antisemitism has no place in the protest movement he has helped to lead. This is a developing story and will be updated.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store