Eighth Circuit Held That Officer Violated 4th Amendment

Eighth Circuit Held That Officer Violated 4th Amendment By Entering Homeowner's Backyard To Conduct "Knock-and-Talk," Without Any Reason To Believe The Homeowner Would Be Found There


The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit decided the issue of whether the portion of the unpaved driveway extending past the rear of the defendant, Wells's home and into the backyard was part of the home's curtilage and if so, whether that entry was reasonable when law enforcement conducted a "knock-and-talk," whereby the police forgo the knock at the front door. The court held that the backyard was part of the curtilage and that the police violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights because the entry was not reasonable.
In this case, three officers arrived at defendant, Michael Joe Wells's home around 4 a.m., after receiving a tip from a confidential source that he was manufacturing methamphetamine in an outbuilding behind his house. Wells's house is on a lot that is fenced along its sides and back but is not fenced along its front. A portion of the unpaved driveway extends past the rear of Wells's home and into the backyard, where at least 10 feet from behind the house is a two-story outbuilding and is poorly visible from the street.
From the driveway, the officers could see a light on inside the two-story outbuilding in the backyard. The officers walked across the backyard to the lighted door on the outbuilding and they could see movement inside so they knocked on the door. Wells answered the door and the officers smelled a strong odor of burnt marijuana and saw smoke in the air. The officers ordered Wells and another man to go outside. When an officer went inside the outbuilding to make sure that no one else was inside, the officer saw a large bag marijuana on a table. The officers arrested Wells for marijuana possession and a search of Wells revealed a coffee filter with methamphetamine in it. Later that morning based on the evidence collected from Wells's arrest, officers then obtained a search warrant for the outbuilding and seized evidence of the manufacture of methamphetamine.
The district court indicted Wells for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. Wells moved to suppress evidence obtained during two searches of an outbuilding behind his house. The district court determined that the portion of the unpaved driveway extending past the rear of Wells's home and into the backyard is part of the home's curtilage and therefore granted the motion to suppress the evidence. The government appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Eighth Circuit.
The Eighth Circuit started its analysis with the Constitution and settled case precedent. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that "The right of the people to be secure in their . . . houses . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . ." The Eighth Circuit previously has held that this protection extends to the curtilage surrounding a home, which "is the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life, and therefore has been considered part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes."
To determine whether the officers violated Wells's Fourth Amendment right, the Eighth Circuit analyzed two issues: (1) Did the officers enter the curtilage of Wells's home when they walked along the unpaved driveway to the backyard?; and, if so, (2) Was that entry reasonable? The Eighth Circuit resolved whether the unpaved driveway to the backyard is considered curtilage of Well's home by considering four factors: [1] the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, [2] whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, [3] the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and [4] the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by.
The court determined that the officers did enter the curtilage of Wells's home. The court found that the officer's ability to observe through open windows what happened inside Wells's home did not altogether extinguish the homeowner's otherwise reasonable expectation of privacy in the home itself. The court reasoned, "we think that a homeowner may expose portions of the curtilage of his home to public view while still maintaining some expectation of privacy in those areas. In this case, for example, Wells certainly exposed his unpaved driveway to public view, and therefore could not reasonably expect that members of the public would not observe whatever he might do there. But he could reasonably expect that
members of the public would not traipse down the drive to the back corner of his
home, from where they could freely observe his entire backyard." Therefore, the court concluded that the officers were standing in an area in which Wells's had a reasonable expectation of privacy, i.e., the curtilage of his home, when they observed the lighted outbuilding.
As to the issue of whether the officers' entry onto the curtilage was constitutionally unreasonable, the Eighth Circuit held that it was. The court explained that when police officers choose to enter a home, the Fourth Amendment requires that they first obtain consent or a warrant, or, in exigent circumstances, have probable cause. Because curtilage is treated as part of the home, those same rules apply here. The court determined that entry was not reasonable because the officers first walked to the back corner of the home from where they had a view of the entire backyard at 4:00 a.m., and other than perhaps their suspicion of drug manufacturing, there was no reason for the officers to think that Wells would be found in the backyard at that time, nor was there any reason for them to think that Wells generally would receive "visitors" there. The court added that the unpaved driveway passing around the side of Wells's home was not an area "generally made accessible to visitors." Thus, the Eighth Circuit was "not prepared to extend the "knock-and-talk" rule to situations in which the police forgo the knock at the front door and, without any reason to believe the homeowner will be found there, proceed directly to the backyard. Thus, the court affirmed the order suppressing the evidence.

The case is U.S. v. Wells, No. 10-2638, dated August 8, 2011. To review the full opinion, click here.