Entry onto defendant\u2019s rural property to both turn around and then investigate a crime that occurred nearby was an entry onto the curtilage, but it was reasonable. \u201cNo Trespassing\u201d sign alone was not completely determinative. Once there, the officer saw a vehicle of interest. United States v. Conyers, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16872 (E.D. Tenn. January 21, 2011):<\/p>\n
As sacred as the home is, society is not willing to accept as reasonable an expectation that a police officer may not question a resident of a dwelling to ascertain if that resident has any information regarding the commission of a criminal act that occurred nearby, or evidence of a criminal act which was discovered nearby. Stated another way, it is not unreasonable for a police officer to come upon private property, even in the face of a no trespassing sign, to ask if the resident has any information that will aid in the investigation of a crime.<\/p>\n
Further, the somewhat arcane issue of curtilage comes into play. Although the court does not recall if there was any testimony regarding the distance from the gate to the house, it clearly was a significant distance as shown by the aerial photographs filed as exhibits. In determining the extent of the curtilage, \u201cthe primary focus is whether the area in question harbors those intimate<\/em> activities associated with domestic life and the privacies of the home<\/em>.\u201d United States v. Dunn<\/a>, 480 U.S. 294, 301, fn. 4, 107 S. Ct. 1134, 94 L. Ed. 2d 326. (italics supplied). Defendant\u2019s Keep Out-No Trespassing Sign does not, in and of itself, establish the extent of the curtilage; if it did, there are ranches in Texas containing thousands of acres that could be entirely encompassed within a home\u2019s curtilage merely by the erection of a \u201ckeep out\u201d sign at the perimeter. Id., 304. To state it succinctly, defendant\u2019s curtilage did not start at his gate, and neither did it start until a point long after Detective Woods was able to see the Jeep which was in plain view.<\/p>\n
So, when Detective Woods went upon defendant\u2019s property on September 28, he was (1) looking for a place to turn his vehicle around, and (2) seeking anyone who might have knowledge of the evidence found in the woods alongside Nations Road. This was not entry upon defendant\u2019s property that violated defendant\u2019s reasonable<\/em> expectation of privacy. Additionally, Detective Woods was well outside the curtilage when he was able to observe the Jeep. For either of these reasons, Detective Woods\u2019 entry was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading