{"id":3011,"date":"2009-07-24T11:04:21","date_gmt":"2009-03-19T06:30:56","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-03-19T06:30:56","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3011","title":{"rendered":"PA: Entry into curtilage at night was without exigency and suppressed"},"content":{"rendered":"

Where the state supreme court had upheld the stop of the driver in this case (State v. Anderson, 281 Kan. 896, 136 P.3d 406 (2006)), the stop of the passenger was justified, too. Under Arizona v. Johnson<\/a>, 172 L. Ed. 2d 694, 129 S. Ct. 781 (2009), the patdown of the passenger was justified by reasonable suspicion. State v. Golston<\/a>, 41 Kan. App. 2d 444, 203 P.3d 10 (2009).*<\/p>\n

Officers’ entry into curtilage at night to investigate a property crime was not justified by exigent circumstances. Commonwealth v. Lee<\/a>, 2009 PA Super 43, 972 A.2d 1 (2009):<\/p>\n

[*P8] In this case, a balancing of the Roland factors demonstrates a lack of exigency for a warrantless search of Lee’s property. The gravity of the offense was low, as the police were investigating a report of property damage at the time of the intrusion. The officers had no reason to believe that any occupants of the house were armed or posed any danger to anyone, as the crime involved was not a violent one. There is no evidence in the record to indicate that the occupants of the house were even aware of the presence of the police outside, and thus there was no reason for the officers to think that destruction of evidence was imminent or that a suspect might escape if not apprehended quickly before a warrant could be obtained. Finally, the officers searched Lee’s property at night and the entry was peaceable.<\/p>\n

[*P9] The Commonwealth does not dispute that Lee had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area behind his residence where the pickup truck was parked. Appellee’s Brief at 5. Accordingly, lacking any exigent circumstances, the police officers should have obtained a search warrant before continuing their investigation onto the curtilage of Lee’s property. By failing to do so, they violated Lee’s constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A minor’s detention was justified because he was seen sitting next to open beer cans with beer in them when officers saw minors drinking on a porch. J.D. v. State<\/a>, 902 N.E.2d 293 (Ind. App. 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3011","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3011","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3011"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3011\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3011"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3011"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3011"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}