{"id":7764,"date":"2012-12-29T14:30:28","date_gmt":"2012-09-28T09:54:54","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-09-28T09:54:54","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=7764","title":{"rendered":"OR: Knock-and-talk at defendant\u2019s backdoor violated curtilage and was unreasonable"},"content":{"rendered":"

Knock-and-talk at defendant\u2019s backdoor violated curtilage and was unreasonable. State v. Unger<\/a>, 252 Ore. App. 478, 287 P.3d 1196 (2012):<\/p>\n

In this case, the officers entered defendant’s backyard and, after obtaining defendant’s consent, entered and searched his house. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that (1) the officers’ entry into defendant’s backyard violated defendant’s Article I, section 9, rights because it was a search and it was not justified by either a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement, and (2) the officers’ entry into and search of defendant’s house also violated Article I, section 9, because, although defendant consented to the entry and search, his consent was invalid because it was the product of illegal police conduct, specifically, the illegal entry into his backyard.<\/p>\n

We turn first to the officers’ entry into defendant’s backyard. As described, the officers went into defendant’s backyard and knocked at his back door. Under Oregon law, “intrusions onto residential curtilage are deemed to be trespasses unless the entry is ‘privileged or [has the occupant’s] express or implied consent.'” State v. Somfleth, 168 Ore. App. 414, 424-25, 8 P.3d 221 (2000) (quoting State v. Ohling, 70 Ore. App. 249, 252, 688 P.2d 1384, rev den, 298 Ore. 334 (1984)). “[A]bsent evidence of an intent to exclude, an occupant impliedly consents to people walking to the front door and knocking on it, because of social and legal norms of behavior.” State v. Portrey, 134 Ore. App. 460, 464, 896 P.2d 7 (1995); see also Ohling, 70 Ore. App. at 253. However, “[a]pproaches to points * * * other than a front door * * * are generally not regarded as being approaches to which the occupant has implicitly consented.” Pierce, 226 Ore. App. at 343. Accordingly, we have held that, as a general matter, an officer may enter a front yard and knock on a front door, but an officer may not enter a backyard and knock on a back door. Ohling, 70 Ore. App. at 253. Such an entry is a trespass and constitutes a search for the purposes of Article I, section 9. Ohling, 70 Ore. App. at 252.<\/p><\/blockquote>\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-7764","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7764","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=7764"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7764\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7764"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7764"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7764"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}