N.D.Fla.: Police going to backyard with a drug dog violated curtilage

Officers went into defendant’s backyard with a drug dog and that unreasonably invaded the curtilage. United States v. Holland, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102751 (N.D. Fla. May 30, 2025):

No one—certainly no reasonably prudent law enforcement officer—could mistake the backyard for anything but curtilage. The deputies needed to veer off “the path that visitors would naturally take to walk to the front door” to gain access to the backyard. United States v. Stephen, 823 F. App’x 751, 755 (11th Cir. 2020); see Collins, 584 U.S. at 593 (finding relevant to the curtilage inquiry that “[a] visitor endeavoring to reach the front door of the house … would turn off before entering the [carport]” later found to be curtilage). In fact, if the backyard’s gate had been closed, the deputies would have needed to either climb the fence or step over the contractors actively repairing it to get in. The police “cannot traipse through the garden, meander into the backyard, or take other circuitous detours that veer from the pathway that a visitor would customarily use.” Jardines, 569 U.S. at 19 (Alito, J., dissenting) ….

This entry was posted in Curtilage. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.