{"id":4918,"date":"2011-12-28T08:38:57","date_gmt":"2010-11-22T00:06:44","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-11-21T12:50:34","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4918","title":{"rendered":"AZ: Going into garage to look at car instead of doing “knock and talk” at door was unreasonable"},"content":{"rendered":"

An officer went to defendant\u2019s house to do a knock and talk. Instead of going to the door, he went into the open garage to check out defendant\u2019s car. This violated curtilage and was unreasonable, analyzing a bunch of curtilage cases from around the county. The court found \u201cinstructive\u201d United States v. Magana<\/a>, 512 F.2d 1169 (9th Cir. 1975), where a heroin deal went down in a garage, and that was a waiver of privacy. State v. Blakley<\/a>, 226 Ariz. 25, 595 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 4, 243 P.3d 628 (2010):<\/p>\n

P17 Here, instead of approaching the front door to make contact with any occupants of the residence, Silva walked past the pathway that led directly to the front door and continued walking down the driveway into an area ordinarily not used by visitors. And at the suppression hearing, Silva acknowledged that his original intent when he entered the property was to \u201cknock and talk\u201d to an occupant of the residence, but instead, he decided to investigate the vehicle. Applying Magana\u2019s reasonableness test to the facts of this case, we conclude that in exceeding the boundaries of the area commonly accessed by visitors, with no intent to locate an occupant but, rather, for the purpose of conducting an investigation, Silva\u2019s actions in approaching the vehicle violated Blakley\u2019s reasonable expectation of privacy in that area of his property. Silva\u2019s presence near the vehicle on Blakley\u2019s driveway therefore was unlawful. And, in the absence of a warrant, or an exception to that requirement, the search of the garage that followed also was unlawful.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defendant was stopped and arrested shortly after threatening to shoot up a bank. His car had been stopped, and a gun case was visible. This was a valid plain view. State v. Barnes<\/a>, 158 Wn. App. 602, 243 P.3d 165 (2010).*<\/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-4918","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4918","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=4918"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4918\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4918"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4918"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4918"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}