MO: Knock-and-talk at shop building away from house wasn’t on curtilage

A nighttime knock-and-talk at a shop building behind defendant’s house was not shown to be on the curtilage. State v. Cady, 425 S.W.3d 234 (Mo. 2014):

Third, there was no evidence that the shop building is used to carry on the “intimate activities of the home” as is required for a structure to be included within a dwelling’s curtilage. See id. Rather, testimony and photographic evidence indicate that the area surrounding the shop building is strewn with scrap items and unwanted debris, such as inoperable vehicles, rusted barrels, and multiple sinks. Use of the shop building as a dumping ground for trash does not elevate the shop building to a status equal to that of a residence. See United States v. Mooring, 137 F.3d 595, 596 (8th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, Trooper Rutledge testified to a strong chemical odor associated with methamphetamine, which he noticed immediately upon exiting his vehicle; such evidence is indicative of a building not being used to continue the intimate activities of the home. See Dunn, 480 U.S. at 302-03.

Note the implication of emergency from the immediate “strong chemical smell” from the meth lab.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.