Commonwealth v. Leslie, 477 Mass. 48

On May 29, 2014, plainclothes Boston police observed a group of men at a three‑family house in Dorchester; officers suspected a hidden firearm after observing suspicious, surveillance‑conscious behavior.
Detective Griffin left the walkway, entered the fenced front/side yard and, behind a recycling bin and near a wooden fence, observed a loaded sawed‑off shotgun protruding from under the side porch.
Leslie (a visitor) was arrested at the scene; Price (a second‑floor resident) was later arrested. Both were indicted for unlawful possession of a firearm and related charges.
The Superior Court judge granted the defendants’ motions to suppress, ruling the warrantless intrusion into the porch/side yard was an unconstitutional search under Jardines and art. 14.
The Commonwealth appealed; the Supreme Judicial Court granted direct appellate review to decide Jardines’ application to a multifamily dwelling.
The SJC affirmed suppression, holding the side yard/porch were within the home’s curtilage and the officer’s deviation from the path to search was an unlicensed physical intrusion requiring a warrant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Jardines apply to multifamily homes or only single‑family porches?	Commonwealth: Jardines is limited to single‑family homes; multifamily areas should be tested for exclusivity or expectation of privacy.	Price/Leslie: Jardines governs searches of areas constituting curtilage of any home, single‑ or multi‑family.	Jardines applies; protection turns on whether area is curtilage, not dwelling type.
Was the side yard/porch at the three‑family house within the curtilage?	Commonwealth: Area was not within protected curtilage (no exclusive control shown).	Defendants: Porch and side yard were intimately tied to Price’s home and within curtilage.	Applying Dunn factors, the court held the porch/side yard were within the curtilage.
Did the officers’ entry into the side yard constitute an unlicensed physical intrusion?	Commonwealth: Officers had implied license to approach and could investigate.	Defendants: Officer exceeded implied license by veering off path to search under porch.	The deviation to search was an unlicensed physical intrusion and therefore a search under Jardines.
Could the search be justified by probable cause or exigent circumstances?	Commonwealth (raised on appeal): Officer had probable cause and exigency to search without a warrant.	Defendants: No probable cause/warrantless exception existed; suppression proper.	Argument waived because not raised below; court did not decide merits.

Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (warrant required where police made an unlicensed physical intrusion into home curtilage to conduct a search).
United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (four‑factor test for whether an area is within a home's curtilage).
Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984) (curtilage is part of the home for Fourth Amendment purposes).
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (physical intrusion on constitutionally protected area can render a search unnecessary to analyze under reasonable‑expectation test).
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (search of dwelling requires a warrant absent recognized exceptions).
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (Terry stop/frisk principles; cited to distinguish that reasonable‑suspicion frisk doctrine does not justify dwelling searches).
Commonwealth v. Warren, 475 Mass. 530 (2016) (standard for reviewing suppression findings).