Driveway to garage not visible from street could still be route of entry by the police despite curtilage

Police do not need a warrant to walk down the driveway to look at defendant’s car. It is in the curtilage, but it is visible to all. Here, the vehicle was not even visible from the street, but the same rule applied because a driveway and a sideway is the expected route of entry of visitors. State v. Vierheilig, 2007 N.J. Super. LEXIS 244 (July 12, 2007):

Whether the car could be seen from the sidewalk was irrelevant as the police did not need a warrant to walk down the driveway to the garage to speak to defendant. State v. Nikola, supra, 359 N.J. Super. at 581. Fourth Amendment protections are limited to a person’s house and the “curtilage” of the house. United State v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 300, 107 S. Ct. 1134, 1139, 94 L. Ed. 2d 326, 334 (1987). “[T]he extent of the curtilage is determined by factors that bear upon whether an individual reasonably may expect that the area in question should be treated as the home itself.” Ibid. Furthermore, “a portion of the curtilage, being the normal route of access for anyone visiting the premises, is ‘only a semi-private area.’ … Thus, when the police come on to private property to conduct an investigation … and restrict their movements to places visitors could be expected to go (e.g., walkways, driveways, porches), observations made from such vantage points are not covered by the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Johnson, 171 N.J. 192, 209 (2002) (quoting 1 Wayne R. LaFave, Search & Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment, § 2.3(f) (3d ed. 1996)). We note that defendant makes no proffer that there was a fence across the driveway or any other measures taken to prevent visitors from using the driveway to access the property. The testimony was undisputed that the officers remained on the driveway when they spoke with defendant and did not enter the garage, thus they were not subject to any constitutional constraint.

Low flying helicopter surveillance of a marijuana grow in a corn field was not unreasonable under the N.J. Constitution because it was in open fields. Also, an alleged violation of the Posse Commitatus Act by involvement of the military or Coast Guard no longer even merits discussion. State v. Marolda, 394 N.J. Super. 430, 927 A.2d 154 (2007).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.