Arp v. State
327 Ga. App. 340
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Watson was the target of an arrest warrant for misdemeanor obstruction and not located at Arp’s home.
- Officers went to Watson’s listed address and then to a second address (Lakeshore Drive) identified as Watson’s likely location.
- The Lakeshore Drive residence had a red Chrysler; officers approached the back of Arp’s home to the back door area without consent or a warrant.
- From the back door area, an officer observed movement and marijuana and concluded there was evidence to seize.
- Arp, who lived at the home, was not Watson or Wilson and did not consent to entry; officers entered Arp’s curtilage and home without a warrant or consent.
- Trial court denied suppression; appellate court reversed, holding the entry into curtilage was unlawful and tainted the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entering the back yard/curtilage without a warrant was lawful | Arp argued officers had no warrant or consent to enter curtilage | State claimed exigent circumstances justified entry | Exigent circumstances not proven; entry of curtilage unlawful |
| Whether observed marijuana and subsequent seizure were permissible as tainted fruit of an illegal entry | Evidence obtained from unlawful entry cannot sustain conviction | Evidence should be admitted if lawfully seized after observation | Convictions reversed due to illegal search |
| Whether Steagald and related Fourth Amendment standards apply to third-party home entry in pursuit of a suspect | State relied on Steagald to justify entry | Steagald requires consent, warrant, or exigent circumstances; none present | Entry unlawful; suppression proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981) (entry into third-party home requires warrant/exigent circumstances or consent)
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984) (home and curtilage protections apply; plain view limits elsewhere)
- Kirsche v. State, 271 Ga. App. 729 (2005) (curtilage entry requires proper authorization; protective sweeps require suspicion)
- Dunn v. United States, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (curtilage defined; factors for curtilage consideration)
- Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981) (reiterates limits on entering third-party home without warrant/consent)