Judge tosses detective's doorknob swab results [Ruled Violation of 4th Amendment]

Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 7/11/2005 | Pamela Manson

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Most visitors just knock on the door. But when a detective approached Troy Levi Miller's home one day last year, he made no attempt to contact anyone inside.

Instead, he wiped a sterile cloth over the doorknob and left.

A test on the cloth allegedly revealed traces of methamphetamine, and those results helped a narcotics task force get a warrant to search the South Salt Lake house. But now, U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball has thrown out the test as a violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.

Kimball's ruling was the third one from a federal court in Utah - and only the fourth in the nation - involving the Ionscan 400B, a machine that analyzes microscopic particles picked up by wiping a surface with a sterile cloth. The cloth is placed in the machine, which gives an alert when certain substances, such as cocaine and methamphetamine, are found.

A doorknob is part of the private area of a residence and the officer should have gotten the search warrant before taking the swab, Kimball said.

"A visitor could not turn the doorknob without invading the privacy of the home's occupants - the only purpose for turning the doorknob is to gain access to the privacy of the home," the judge wrote in a June 30 decision. "A doorknob is not something that is transitory that could be borrowed, taken, or moved to another location. . . . It is a component part of the home."

However, Miller isn't off the hook. Kimball also decided there was enough other evidence, without the test results, to provide probable cause for a search warrant.

That leaves in place felony charges of possession of a controlled substance and aiding in the manufacture and sale of methamphetamine against the 34-year-old Miller.

Police argue that the presence of controlled substances shows that individuals who use or sell narcotics touched the tested area and is evidence of drug dealing in the residence.

The dispute over the technology centers on whether a doorknob is part of a home, a factor that helps determine whether police must get a search warrant before getting a swab. In addition, defense attorneys note that anyone can touch a doorknob, and argue that the mere presence of drug particles is no evidence of a crime.

The three Utah rulings and a 1999 decision out of the Virgin Islands have split on the issue.

In the Virgin Islands case, a trial judge threw out the analysis of a swab taken from a home's screen door, saying the search for marijuana residue violated the Fourth Amendment.

In Utah, U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart took a similar stand, ruling in August that the Ionscan test of an Ogden man's doorknob required a warrant. However, he upheld a search of Anthony Diviase Mora's home, saying other evidence provided probable cause.

Just a few months before, his colleague, Judge Tena Campbell, refused to throw out evidence against Dennis Daybell of Magna obtained through an Ionscan test.

She said the procedure reveals nothing about the inside of a house and compared use of the machine to having a trained dog sniff for drugs.

pmanson@sltrib.com

[sheik yerbouty]

Actually, it was the police action with the doorknob that was crappy. I should have had more coffee this morning..

[sheik yerbouty]

I wonder what the charges would be if an assailant shouted "I love you" while trying to axe someone.

[wildbill]

I believe that a few years ago a court ruled that recorded sounds from inside a home that were obtained from a device that analysed vibrations on a window were legally admissable.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

It's not like I have homeless crackheads crashing at my house and I don't run with those kinds of people. My point is that if the cops are allowed to swab doorknobs, then that makes me accountable for the behavior of anybody that comes to my doorstep for any reason. Do you want your front door kicked in because you got visited by an old college buddy or relative that has a fairly new crack habit that nobody knows about yet?

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

I'm hearing stories of cops raiding houses that have unusually high electric bills on suspicion of growing pot. If you're a home do-it-yourself welder, watch out.

[garyhope]

" If my scumbag brother-in-law comes over looking to borrow money"

This is no joke. I came home one day to find one of my cousin's sons, who's spent a lot of time in jail and prison (mostly for being drunk, drugged and stupid) in the house talking on my phone, online on my computer (and had changed some of my settings and software) had helped himself to a $30 bottle of wine that was a gift to me, had rifled through my mom's medicine cabinet and taken all the meds left over from her nursing home and had just made himself at home. The house was locked when I left. He just removed a screen, opened a window and invited himself in. It meant nothing to him. I escorted him out the door to his truck (which he never finished paying for of course, sticking his father in law for the bill).

He was exhausting to be around. He never shut up, never stopped trying to manipulate or make you feel guilty for his self-induced "mistakes" and misfortune. He would just wear you down. He never shut up! In the old days, I'm sure people like him got shot, just to shut them up.

I could tell you a lot more stories about him and one of his brothers. It's like that Albert King song, "Born Under A Bad Sign", if he "didn't have bad luck, he wouldn't have any luck at all".

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

I take a lot of short business trips, meaning I rent cars a lot. I always give it a good look under the seats, in the trunk, and all that. But you can't look everywhere. I hate to think that I could take the hit for some weirdo who rented the car before me. Rental car places aren't always the best at cleaning out their cars. There have been many many times that I've found rental agreements and other paperwork from previous customers in rental cars, so the glove box is something that should always be checked real well.

[dpa5923]

No one was arrested because trace drugs were on the doorknob. A search warrant was obtained in part because trace drugs were found on the doorknob. From the article, "Kimball also decided there was enough other evidence, without the test results, to provide probable cause for a search warrant."

The doorknob was only a peice of the compelling information that convinced a judge to issue a search warrant. The perp was arrested after a properly executed search turned up illegal drugs.

[garyhope]

Good idea. Wouldn't be a bad idea to stop by the local car wash and have it vacuumed inside and in the trunk.

What if someone used the car in the commission of a crime, turned it in (like at the airport where you just drop it and walk away), someone had gotten the license number, you drive out of the rental lot and get nailed by the police and you wind up in the backseat of a police cruiser or worse? Eventually you might be cleared, but the jail time might be no fun.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

I'm extremely convinced that if the cops were to serve a search warrant on my house, they would nothing (unless they planted it). I don't know about everybody else, but I'm very sure that I would find having my door kicked in, being pinned face-first on the carpet, and having my house gone through piece by piece decidedly inconvenient. The cops need to go find a different method of determining probably cause.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

probably cause

Probable cause...that's better!

[dpa5923]

The doorknob swab was only a piece of information required to get the search warrant. Although no knock warrants occur they are not routinely issued and if all a cop had was residue on your doorknob, he would be unable to get a warrant much less a no-knock warrant. But don't let the facts stop you. Exaggerate the issue and paint all law enforcement as jack-boot thugs. It makes a much better story.

For the record, I tend to agree with the judges decision and if I were in a position to make the ruling would likely not allow a doorknob swab as a tool to obtain a search warrant. But crazy as it sounds, I feel the facts should be debated, not wild fantasies and hyperbole.

[wyattearp]

Of course, why would the police be testing your doorknob, out of the hundreds of millions of doorknobs? They would have to have some reason to think that testing your doorknob would reveal something interesting.

Or, they could just walk down the street testing every doorknob, and get warrants on any house that comes up "hot". Bad procedure. Good ruling.

[geezerwheezer]

I think most cops are good and decent folks. There are a few though, that mess up the works for all the rest. There is nothing that scares me more than a corrupt police officer or a corrupt district attorney. My good friend got caught up in some of that stuff out in Seattle a few years ago, (someone left pot in his car) and I must say that the D.A. there was not a good person, nor were the police! What a bad joke that was....20 grand to defend himself and the judge threw it out the first minute of his trial.

[dpa5923]

The doorknob swap was not the sole basis of the warrant and it is extremly unlikely any judge would sign off on a warrant based on this little "evidence". The warrant was based on a number of facts, one of which was the swab on the doorknob. Although I agree with the judge's ruling, your senerio doesn't jibe with the facts of the case.

[William Terrell]

The presence of drug residue on any outside portion of a house merely indicates that someone with drug residue on their hands touched it, including anyone in the state, or out of state.

How's about someone who wants to harass you sneaks up on your house tonight and places traces of an "illegal" drug on your door knob, then calls in a tip.

Would you enjoy the intrusion? No? Then this practice is null and void on its face and even having a cop doing it should lose his badge, regardless of a judge ruling it inadmissible.

Maybe another judge wouldn't rule it inadmissible, and you finally get it dropped, after a few thousand dollars in legal challenges.

Enjoy the loss of money, would you? No? This exercise could devastate a family.

[cspackler]

When I was in High School in the early '80s, it was common practice to duct tape the air vents on your locker door from the inside. It was the early days of the drug dog invasion in schools, and any evidence of drugs in your locker was immediate guilt. The druggies in school always seemed to know what was going down, and would dump their stash by shoving it through the slats of the lockers of people that they didn't like.

It got ugly...

[dpa5923]

Umm. . .extremly should be extremely, senerio should be scenario, and jibe should be jive.

[Sofa King]

Keep this issue in context. The drugs on the doorknob were NOT used to prove that a crime had been committed. They were only used to get a search warrant to see whether there was evidence INSIDE the house, of a specific drug-related crime.

Irrelevant. The act itself was ruled as an unreasonable search and seizure. If it is allowed, the police would be allowed to break down your door and raid your house as long they didn't use anything they collected in a prosecution.

[muir_redwoods]

A critical element of this decision is the "sterile" cloth. If a practice like this had been allowed to stand, how long before pre-treated cloths start getting used? Don't think it can't happen, all it takes is one or two bad cops in a department.