{"id":1821,"date":"2008-04-13T19:49:24","date_gmt":"2008-02-25T07:21:37","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-02-25T07:21:37","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1821","title":{"rendered":"WA: “No Trespassing” sign and distance from nearest road created an expectation of privacy under state law"},"content":{"rendered":"

Despite the legitimate business of the police to drive down defendant’s primative road to investigate a burglary nearby, the presence of “No Trespassing” signs down this road and the long distance from the road afforded defendant an expectation of privacy from police intrusion under the state constitution. State v. Jesson<\/a>, 142 Wn. App. 852, 177 P.3d 139 (2008). The Lexis Overview:<\/p>\n

A deputy had been informed that defendant might have information regarding the possible suspects in the theft of a neighbor’s property and he entered the property for the sole purpose of asking defendant about the suspects. Thus, the deputy was engaged in legitimate police business. Defendant’s property was located in a remote, sparsely populated and heavily forested area. While the deputy entered the property during daylight hours, he had to drive down a long and rough, primitive driveway to access defendant’s home. He also had to enter through a closed, but unlocked gate posted with a no trespassing sign. Furthermore, defendant’s home was not visible from the gate; nor was it visible from his neighbors’ property or any other public area. The driveway and property surrounding it were posted with no trespassing and keep out signs. The appellate court found that a reasonable, respectful citizen would not believe that he could enter the property. Thus, the deputy’s entry onto the curtilage of defendant’s property without his consent violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment and Wash. Const. art. I, \u00a7 7. Therefore, his motion to suppress was improperly denied.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

ND declines to follow Indiana’s Litchfield<\/em><\/a> and find a reasonable expectation of privacy in a curbside trash seizure. State v. Schmalz<\/a>, 2008 ND 27, 744 N.W.2d 734 (2008).*<\/p>\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-1821","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1821","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1821"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1821\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1821"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1821"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1821"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}