E.D.Mo.: When no one home for a knock-and-talk, officers can go to back door without violating curtilage

When officers received no response to their knock-and-talk at the front door, they could go to the back door without violating cartilage. A burn barrel in the back yard was seen, and a search warrant was obtained. United States v. Rothermich, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45798 (E.D. Mo. April 30, 2010):

To the extent that the defendant claims that the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights by entering onto his property to conduct their “knock and talk” procedure, such claim has no merit. “Law enforcement officers may encroach upon the curtilage of a home for the purpose of asking questions of the occupants.” United States v. Hammett, 236 F.3d 1054, 1059 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 866 (2001); United States v. Raines, 243 F.3d 419, 421 (8th Cir. 2001). Nor does the fact that the officers walked to the rear of the structures in order to locate occupants of the property constitute any Fourth Amendment violation. United States v. Anderson, 552 F.2d 1296, 1300 (8th Cir. 1977)(“We cannot say that the agents’ actions in proceeding to the rear after receiving no answer at the front door was so incompatible with the scope of their original purpose that any evidence inadvertently seen by them must be excluded as the fruit of an illegal search.”).

[This just smells wrong because it is too convenient to make it up.]

Habeas petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim was fully and fairly considered in the state court, so federal court has no jurisdiction to decide it. Mason v. Allen, 605 F.3d 1114 (11th Cir. 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.