The answer to this question remains heavily up in the air, as demonstrated by the history of negotiations between several judges throughout the proceedings of this case. The relevance of United States v. Jones rests in the Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence’s back and forth between reliance on the trespass-based criterion and the reasonable expectation of privacy requirement.
The rule of the Constitutional Fourth Amendment establishes that private property is to be protected against invasion. Police duties can still be performed on the grounds of one’s property, but the proper documentation (e.g., warrant) has to be in place.
However, general practice and the trespassing standards suggest that the “knock and talk” actions can be lawful if performed in cooperation with the property owner and without the involvement of any additional devices or means of pressure.