IL: Officers investigating noise complaint at house could go to back door when nobody answered front door

Officers investigating a noise complaint could go to the back door of the subject residence when nobody answered the front door and there was apparently somebody home. People v. Cannon, 2015 IL App (3d) 130672, 2015 Ill. App. LEXIS 9 (January 7, 2015):

[*P16] Law enforcement officers may lawfully approach the front door of a residence to conduct an investigation. People v. Redman, 386 Ill. App. 3d 409, 418, 900 N.E.2d 1146, 326 Ill. Dec. 899 (2008). They can proceed to a back door after they have knocked on the front door and received no answer but they have reason to believe someone is home. See People v. Woodrome, 2013 IL App (4th) 130142, ¶ 24, 996 N.E.2d 1143, 375 Ill. Dec. 87; Hardesty v. Hamburg Township, 461 F.3d 646, 654 (6th Cir. 2007). Officers may approach the back door of a residence where circumstances indicate that the officers might find the homeowner there. Alvarez v. Montgomery County, 147 F.3d 354, 356 (4th Cir. 1998); see also People v. Redman, 386 Ill. App. 3d 409, 418, 900 N.E.2d 1146, 326 Ill. Dec. 899 (2008) (an officer may approach the back of a residence “where a legitimate reason is shown for approaching the back door”).

[*P17] Here, Byrd testified that she initially proceeded to the back of defendant’s house because she heard noise coming from there. She proceeded up the back deck, attempting to find and speak to the owner of the house. Since noise was coming from the back deck, it was reasonable for Byrd to believe that she might find the homeowner there and talk to him or her about the noise complaint she was investigating. Based on these circumstances, Byrd did not violate defendant’s fourth amendment rights. See Alvarez, 147 F.3d at 356; Redman, 386 Ill. App. 3d at 418. The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress.

This entry was posted in Curtilage. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.