CA11: Absence of a clear path and a door knocker doesn’t mean police can’t come to the front door

Defendant didn’t raise standing but the court did on its own. And it denied the motion to suppress on the merits. Based on the plea colloquy, it’s evident that the product of the search didn’t contribute to the conviction, so it’s harmless. The contention that the absence of a clearly delineated path and a door knocker means that there was no implied right for the police to come to the door reads too much into Jardines. United States v. Jackson, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11034 (11th Cir. June 29, 2015):

Jackson and Jones’ argument that, because there was no delineated path leading up to the door, and because the door did not have markings, a doorbell or knocker, or an adjacent mailbox, there was no implied invitation to enter is likewise unavailing. The appellants point to no authority stating that these attributes are necessary to find that an implied invitation to enter existed. Their reliance on Jardines is misplaced, as that case provides only that a door knocker serves as an implied invitation to knock, not that the absence of a knocker, or any other specific features, is necessarily a signal not to do so. See Jardines, 569 U.S. at __, 133 S. Ct. at 1415-16.