NE CoA botches a curtilage case

Defendant was convicted of 25 counts of having “junked motor vehicles” on his property in the city. From the street, the code enforcement officer saw the vehicles, then he entered the property to record the VINs. The court held that there was probable cause for the entry, and expressly declined to decide open fields, and thus by implication curtilage. [Thus, the court botched it, and hopefully it will be revisited on rehearing or by the state supreme court. Probable cause alone doesn’t make an entry on to a person’s property right. That’s fundamental Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. The cars weren’t going anywhere. Either get a warrant or argue open fields. This is just wrong. I can’t say Mr. Meints would win, but the court shouldn’t have decided this so superficially.] City of Beatrice v. Meints, 21 Neb. App. 805, 2014 Neb. App. LEXIS 66 (March 11, 2014):

McCormick testified that when he arrived at Meints’ Beatrice property, he stood on a public street. From this location, he could observe motor vehicles with expired license plates, vehicles with no license plates, and vehicles in inoperable condition. These vehicles fit the definition in § 16-621 of junked motor vehicles, and there is a presumption based on such observations that the property owner was in violation of the city code. McCormick testified that he believed Meints was in violation of the Beatrice City Code regarding unregistered motor vehicles and that he believed he had probable cause to enter the property to take photographs and record VIN numbers of the vehicles, which VIN numbers were to be used to search for the corresponding records within the Department of Motor Vehicles’ database to confirm the registration status of each vehicle.

In light of these facts, and the provisions in the city code, it was reasonable for McCormick to believe that expired license plates and the associated VIN numbers on the corresponding vehicles could be evidence of a crime, therefore affording him probable cause to lawfully enter the property to record this information.

McCormick testified that once he entered the property, he did not enter any vehicles, open any doors, enter any structures, move any items, or seize any objects while recording VIN numbers and photographing the property.

Based upon our review of the evidence, we find McCormick and the Beatrice police officers had a legal right to be on a public street to observe the vehicles and the associated license plates. Several vehicles on the property could be observed from the street and could be presumed to be in violation of the city code. As stated above, McCormick’s observations of expired license plates gave him probable cause to enter the property to record VIN numbers and take additional photographs to determine whether the photographs and observations were evidence of a crime; thus, he had a lawful right of access to the “seized” evidence. We find the county court properly overruled Meints’ motion to suppress the photographs and observations of the officers, although for a reason which differs from that found by the trial court. Where the record adequately demonstrates that the decision of the trial court is correct, although such correctness is based on a ground or reason different from that assigned by the trial court, an appellate court will affirm. State v. Huff, 279 Neb. 68, 776 N.W.2d 498 (2009).

Having found that the warrantless search was undertaken with probable cause, we need not address the lower courts’ findings that the open fields exception to the prohibition of warrantless searches and seizures existed in this case. An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is not necessary to adjudicate the case and controversy before it. State v. Jimenez, 283 Neb. 95, 808 N.W.2d 352 (2012).