OR: The fact that the only way into defendant’s apartment was a backdoor was not implied consent for the police to enter the curtilage

Defendant’s apartment was only accessible by a backdoor on the curtilage. The fact that the only way into defendant’s apartment was a backdoor was not implied consent for the police to enter the curtilage, and it was apparently his curtilage, too. State v. Coffman, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 1364 (October 8, 2014):

We reject the state’s contention that, because the officers knew that defendant’s “front door” was in the backyard, the presumption that a resident impliedly consents to the public approaching his or her front door applies in this case. That argument, based on the officers’ subjective knowledge that defendant lived in the basement of the home and had a door leading out to the backyard, is inconsistent with our case law.

We have consistently stated that the presumption of implied consent to approach a resident’s front door is based on social norms and whether an objective member of the public, i.e., a stranger, would understand there to be an implied invitation to approach the residence. For example, we recognized in Somfleth that “[o]ne of the analytic difficulties in this area is that ‘front yard’ and ‘backyard’ are hardly self-defining terms,” but we clarified that, when we use the term “front yard” or “front door,” we are referring “to what an objective visitor would regard as being the primary entrance to the property.” 168 Or App at 424 n 7 (emphasis added); see also State v. Hockema, 264 Or App 625, 631, ___ P3d ___, rev pending (2014) (stating issue as whether the signs and barriers the resident posted “were sufficient to objectively manifest defendant’s intention to prohibit all casual visitors from entering the open driveway and approaching defendant’s front door”); Larson, 159 Or App at 41-42 (explaining that, despite testimony from the defendant’s neighbor in an apartment complex that a sign stating “We like you but not in our backyard. Please KEEP OUT!” was not intended by her to exclude the police, “the test is an objective one and, viewed objectively, the words of the sign did not limit who it was intended to exclude” (emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted)); Ohling, 70 Or App at 253 (discussing the curtilage presumptions in terms of what is acceptable in society for “strangers” to do when approaching a person’s house).