PA: Front porch is not curtilage

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy from a view from the front porch because it is part of the entrance way. It is not curtilage. Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 2009 PA Super 181, 981 A.2d 274 (2009):

[*P10] The issue of whether a front porch constitutes curtilage has not been addressed by the Pennsylvania Appellate Courts. Our sister states which have addressed the issue are divided. However, even those courts which have found that a front porch constitutes curtilage have generally found no Fourth Amendment violation where the porch in question was used by the general public. See, U.S. v. Titemore, 437 F.3d 251, 259 (2d Cir. 2006) (finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in deck attached to home where it constituted part of the principal entryway); Murphy v. Gardner, 413 F.Supp.2d 1156, 1167-68 (D.Colo. 2006) (unenclosed front porch which contained homeowner’s mailbox and newspaper rack did not constitute curtilage for Fourth Amendment purposes); Davis v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1043, 1049-50 (Ind.App. 2009) (noting that police entry onto private property does not violate the Fourth Amendment when the police have a legitimate investigatory purpose and limit their entry to places that visitors would be expected to go like porches, as the Fourth Amendment does not protect items or activities which are knowingly exposed to the public); State v. Brisban, 989 So.2d 923, 927-29 (La. 2002) (no Fourth Amendment violation where police, while standing on a front porch, observed defendant cutting crack cocaine; while front porch was curtilage, defendant had only a limited expectation of privacy because it could have been approached by anyone). Thus, we find that the record supports the suppression court’s conclusion that the officers viewed the contraband from a lawful vantage point.

Failure to dim headlines was a sufficient basis for a stop and a plain view of a baggie of cocaine. State v. Gist, 2009 Ohio 4791, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 4051 (2d Dist. September 11, 2009).*

Consent was inferred from defendant’s statement that the officer could look in his pocket for money in response to a question from the officer. Evidence at both trial and the suppression hearing may be considered in determining an appeal from denial of a suppression motion. Thomas v. State, 297 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. App.–Houston (14th Dist.) 2009).*

Even under the more expansive Washington Constitution, there is no privacy interest in the common area of a commercial storage facility. State v. Lakotiy, 151 Wn. App. 699, 214 P.3d 181 (2009).*