Entry onto curtilage was justified by suspected misdemeanor in officers’ presence

Officers were summoned to a complaint of underage drinking, and, when they approached the premises, two youths outside fled, and the officers chased them onto the curtilage. One was on the curtilage already and fled to the backyard where he was caught. He had alcohol on his breath, and the officer took him to the back door of the house and knocked. The defendant let them in. Inside, the officer observed alcohol and empty cans, so he administered a PBT and found 13 had consumed alcohol, including defendant’s daughter. She was charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The entry into the backyard was justified, and the entry into the house was by consent. Rush v. State, 881 N.E.2d 46 (Ind. App. 2008):

As noted above, the police officers responded to a report that an underage drinking party was occurring at Rush’s residence. Tr. p. 53. When the officers walked toward Rush’s house, an individual–suspected to be underage–saw the officers and began to run away. Id. at 55. Once the suspected juvenile stopped in front of Rush’s home, he told the officers that an underage drinking party was occurring inside. Id. at 36, 47. Shortly after that encounter, Trooper Teusch questioned another teenager, who had been leaning against a vehicle in Rush’s driveway. Trooper Teusch testified that the youth smelled of alcohol. Id. at 71, 77.

Notwithstanding Rush’s claim that the officers lacked the authority to enter her property, we note that Indiana Code section 7.1-5-7-7 defines a minor in possession of alcohol as a class C misdemeanor. After receiving the dispatch regarding the suspected drinking party, the officers reasonably believed that the teens were running from them because they had been drinking at Rush’s house. Additionally, Trooper Hotchkiss entered Rush’s yard to intercept the juveniles who were running from the house because he thought they may have been drinking at the party. Tr. p. 57-58.

When Trooper Teusch heard a commotion in Rush’s backyard, he saw a juvenile climbing out of Rush’s basement window. Id. at 71-72. When apprehending that individual, the officers looked in the basement window and noticed several juveniles, “open beer cans, beer containers,” and a portable bar with several liquor bottles on it. Id. at 58, 60, 74.

In light of these circumstances, the trial court reasonably concluded that the police officers were lawfully on Rush’s premises to investigate the suspected underage drinking party. As a result, neither the police officers’ warrantless entry into Rush’s yard or their subsequent observation of the beer and liquor containers through the basement window violated Rush’s Fourth Amendment rights. Thus, we reject Rush’s argument that the police officers’ actions were improper.

Officers were unjustified in sticking foot in door to prevent plaintiff from closing the door when she decided to end their conversation, and the officers’ motion for summary judgment for illegal entry is denied. Hanie v. City of Woodstock, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12247 (N.D. Ga. February 19, 2008).*

Defendant showed that he was at least an overnight guest with standing to challenge the entry of the house because he had a key and there were his clothes and some toiletries there. United States v. Huang, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12192 (N.D. Cal. February 8, 2008).*