{"id":12496,"date":"2014-07-11T09:27:08","date_gmt":"2014-07-11T14:27:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=12496"},"modified":"2014-07-11T09:27:08","modified_gmt":"2014-07-11T14:27:08","slug":"nh-detached-garage-of-house-was-within-curtilage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=12496","title":{"rendered":"NH: Detached garage of house was within curtilage"},"content":{"rendered":"

Officers\u2019 entry onto defendant\u2019s property to make observations around his detached garage was a violation of curtilage under Jardines. His later consent was found not tainted, but the trial court\u2019s findings are inadequate on whether the illegal search did, in fact, taint the consent, so remanded. State v. Socci<\/a>, 2014 N.H. LEXIS 73 (July 8, 2014):
\n<\/p>\n

Here, Wickson’s entry into the area surrounding the detached garage to gather evidencwhat the State deems the second of \u201ctwo distinct searches\u201d \u2014 \u201crenders this case a straightforward one\u201d under the Federal Constitution. Id. at 1414. In fact, the State concedes that \u201cunder, at least, Florida v. Jardines, \u2026 it probably does violate the Fourth Amendment to walk around the garage \u2014 the observations made around the garage.\u201d We hold that Wickson conducted a search under the Fourth Amendment when, with the purpose of gathering evidence, he physically intruded on the area surrounding the defendant’s garage \u2014 an area undisputedly within the curtilage \u2014 \u201cwhich is not what anyone would think he had license to do.\u201d Id. at 1417. Put another way, the defendant’s implicit license \u201cpermit[ting] \u2026 visitor[s] to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave,\u201d id. at 1415, did not extend so far as to allow a private citizen, let alone a police officer \u201cnot armed with a warrant,\u201d id. at 1416, to circle his garage to gather evidence. Because Wickson’s physical intrusion on the undisputed curtilage of the home to gather evidence was neither \u201cexplicitly [n]or implicitly permitted by the homeowner,\u201d id. at 1414, it was a search under the Fourth Amendment, id. at 1417. As it was conducted without a warrant, and under no recognized exception to the warrant requirement, the search \u201cwas not constitutionally permissible\u201d under the Federal Constitution, Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 390, 395, 98 S. Ct. 2408, 57 L. Ed. 2d 290 (1978), and evidence obtained as a result of the search was, \u201cby that same authority, inadmissible in a state court,\u201d Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081, 86 Ohio Law Abs. 513 (1961). Having determined that the pre-consent search of the area surrounding the garage was unlawful under the Federal Constitution, we need not reach the defendant’s claim that it also violated the State Constitution. Cf. State v. Lantagne, 165 N.H. ___, ___, 83 A.3d 397, 401 (2013).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Officers\u2019 entry onto defendant\u2019s property to make observations around his detached garage was a violation of curtilage under Jardines. His later consent was found not tainted, but the trial court\u2019s findings are inadequate on whether the illegal search did, in … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12496","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-curtilage"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12496","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12496"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12496\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12497,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12496\/revisions\/12497"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12496"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12496"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12496"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}