W.D.Tex.: Officers violated curtilage without PC or exigent circumstances

The motion to suppress is granted without a hearing because the parties’ submissions show no material differences of fact. Given the undisputed facts, the entry into defendant’s back yard was without probable cause or exigent circumstances, and they violated the curtilage. All the government showed was that the defendant did not want to talk to the police. United States v. Puerta-Cazares, 707 F. Supp. 2d 695 (W.D. Tex. 2010)*:

Indeed, the Government argues that the officers entered the yard “out of concern for their own safety and the safety of the community.” Gov’t’s Supp. Resp. 2. “In evaluating exigency, we ‘consider the appearance of the scene of the search in the circumstances presented as it would appear to reasonable and prudent men standing in the shoes of the officers.'” Maldonado, 472 F.3d at 393 (quoting United States v. Rodea, 102 F.3d 1401, 1405 (5th Cir. 1996)). The situation as it initially appeared to the officers as they approached the house was simply this: a man was seeking to avoid police attention in a back yard of a residence. The man (Defendant) was not involved or implicated in any way with the incident to which the officers initially responded and investigated. Additionally, he did not appear to be armed. The Court concludes that this set of circumstances did not present an immediate danger to the lives of the officers or other individuals in the neighborhood that required the officers’ warrantless entry.

Defendant’s failure to respond to the officers’ announcement of their presence at the gate also did not present a danger to the officers or the community. It is neither unusual nor alarming that an individual would be curious about police activity in his neighborhood, but also want to conceal his presence from the officers at the scene. Furthermore, under the circumstances, the officers might have reasonably and safely chosen other methods of investigation.

Because the stop of the vehicle led to everything else, the defendant passenger has standing to challenge the stop. While the officer’s subjective motivations were challenged, there was nothing to contradict his testimony that there was an objective basis for the stop, so it was reasonable. United States v. Jackson-Bey, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37491 (C.D. Ill. March 4, 2010).*