CA8: Just because ordinance permits entry does not make it unconstitutional on its face, but it could be as applied by city

City ordinance says it permits entry for trash cleanup and enforcement. It is not unconstitutional on its face. “If action taken pursuant to that authority violates Fourth Amendment warrant requirements, the resulting criminal prosecution may be tainted, but that does not render the authorizing statute unconstitutional. See, e.g., Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct. 1727, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1967).” The entry to his property over the driveway was reasonable under United States v. Dunn. The garage was 30′-45′ from the house, so that made it not curtilage. Nikolas v. City of Omaha, 605 F.3d 539 (8th Cir. 2010):

Applying the multi-factor test in United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 301, 107 S. Ct. 1134, 94 L. Ed. 2d 326 (1987), the district court concluded that Benson did not need a warrant to approach the garage and peer in its windows because the garage was not part of the curtilage of the residence some thirty to forty-five feet away. We agree with this conclusion, which is consistent with our decisions that have applied Dunn to other garages and barns. … [¶] Moreover, even if Nikolas had an expectation of privacy in the garage warranting protection comparable to that afforded the curtilage of a residence, we conclude that Benson’s minimally intrusive exterior search and look through the windows was constitutionally reasonable.

Arrest warrant with reasonable cause to believe that defendant was at home justified entry into his house under Payton. United States v. Fance, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47951 (S.D. Fla. April 13, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.