Page:State v. Brown.pdf/6

Rh was being grown there. There was no mention of a child being sick because of drugs. The officers obtained a written consent from defendant Brown and entered the residence.

It is undisputed the officers did not have probable cause for a search warrant at the time a consent to search was obtained.

The "knock and talk" procedure used in this case is simply a way to avoid the burden placed on law enforcement officers in obtaining a search warrant.

It would appear that if deception were used in stating the purpose of a requested search then a consent obtained would not be an informed and valid consent.

This Court feels that a "knock and talk" policy of police officers can survive a constitutional challenge only if the right to refuse consent is in writing or is explained before consent is obtained.

Based upon the above factors, this Court feels that the consent to search obtained in this case was not valid; therefore, the motions to suppress filed by both defendants should be granted.

An order was entered that same day granting the two motions to suppress.

[1] We first address whether this court has jurisdiction to hear this State appeal pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure—Criminal 3. The State contends that we do because the appeal implicates Article 2, 5 15, of the Arkansas Constitution and whether that section of our state constitution requires that a home dweller be advised of the right to refuse a consent to search prior to a consent being given. We agree with the State that this appeal raises a significant search-and-seizure issue involving the procedure known as "knock and talk." Accordingly, it is a matter which concerns the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law which requires review by this court. See Ark. R. App. P.—Crim. 3(c). See also State v. Pruitt, 347 Ark. 355, 64 S.W.3d 255 (2002). This court has jurisdiction to review the matter.

The State raises two issues relating to a consensual search. It first contends that the Arkansas Constitution does not require that police officers must advise home dwellers that they have the right