Officer saw marijuana plants growing in defendant’s yard, but he lacked exigent circumstances for an entry

Officer’s entry on to the curtilage in the backyard to see marijuana plants growing in straw next to the house violated the curtilage, and the motion to suppress was properly granted. While the officer could see the plants from off the property, there was no exigency at all justifying the entry. State v. Mell, 39 Kan. App.
2d 471, 182 P.3d 1 (2008).*

N.D. holds that a trash search did not give probable cause to get a warrant for defendant’s house. State v. Kieper, 2008 ND 65, 747 N.W.2d 497 (2008):

[*P13] When all of the evidence presented to the issuing magistrate is considered as a whole, the information may have been sufficient to raise a suspicion that criminal activity was taking place, which may warrant further investigation, but it was not sufficient to establish probable cause to issue a search warrant. We conclude Leingang’s testimony in support of the application for a search warrant does not provide a substantial basis for the magistrate’s conclusion that there was probable cause to issue a search warrant for Kieper’s residence. The search of Kieper’s residence was illegal under the federal and state constitutions, and the evidence seized during the search must be suppressed.