S.D.Iowa: Going to back door when no answer for a knock-and-talk when somebody should have been there was not unreasonable

Officers went to defendant’s property and mobile home to do a knock-and-talk about cocaine trafficking. In the driveway were two vehicles with out of state license plates, and nobody answered a knock at the front door. Officers went to the back door, which was not blocked by any fencing, in case those inside could not hear the knocking. They saw a 30 ton hydraulic press that is commonly used to compress cocaine for shipment. That was a valid plain view, and curtilage was not unreasonably violated by trying the back door. United States v. Gonzalez, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106448 (S.D. Iowa June 4, 2010)*:

The Court finds that there was a sufficient indication that someone might be home for a police officer to knock at an alternate entrance. The presence of several cars at the residence made it reasonably likely for a police officer to believe that someone was home. Raines, 243 F.3d at 420. Because of Special Agent Stepleton’s stated familiarity with the layout of single-wide trailers, it was entirely reasonable for the agents to try an alternate entrance once no one answered at the front door. They also left the curtilage area after no one answered the back door. With an investigatory purpose in mind and cars at the residence, the Court finds that it was a reasonable and “limited intrusion” for the agents to knock at the back door of the residence. Anderson, 552 F.2d at 1298. Once the agents discovered that no one was home, the agents did not remain in the backyard. It is reasonable for an officer to initially enter a backyard to determine if a defendant is home. Estate of Smith, 430 F.3d at 157. Accordingly, the government has met its burden to show that the agents were in a place where they had the right to be when they discovered the 30 ton hydraulic press.

So, just how easy is it for the police to make up the circumstances to go to the back door and claim it was reasonable?