Harson Chong v. United States, 112 F.4th 848

Law enforcement conducted surveillance of a suburban LA home owned by Harson Chong after phone calls linked Tac Tran (a parolee) to the property.
Deputies entered Chong’s curtilage at night without a warrant by climbing a neighbor’s wall and approaching within one foot of Chong’s open garage door, where they observed Tran discard drugs; this led to a broader search and the seizure of drugs, guns, and cash.
Both Chong and Tran were convicted on federal drug and gun charges after motions to suppress were denied in the district court.
Chong and Tran each filed post-conviction motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that their counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the legality of the search under the Fourth Amendment.
The district court denied both motions; the Ninth Circuit consolidated the appeals, vacated, and remanded for further fact-finding on the deputy's position relative to the home.
On remand, the district court found the deputy was within one foot of the home but still denied relief, finding no curtilage violation.

Issue	Chong's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Was entry by deputies onto curtilage without a warrant unreasonable under Fourth Amendment?	Deputies trespassed on curtilage, making search and seizure unlawful under both trespass and privacy tests.	Deputies believed reasonable grounds existed due to Tran’s parole status; no clear expectation of privacy in open garage/driveway.	Entry was a clear curtilage violation, unreasonable without warrant or exigency; search unlawful under both tests.
Was Chong’s counsel ineffective for failing to move to suppress based on curtilage violation?	Counsel failed to raise a clearly winning argument given constitutional protection of curtilage.	Curtilage doctrine was not clear and counsel’s omission not deficient.	Counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial; ineffective assistance established.
Did Tran’s counsel render ineffective assistance by failing to establish Tran’s standing to challenge the search?	Counsel should have introduced evidence/declarations to show Tran had standing as a guest or quasi-resident.	Tran lacked sufficient ties to the home for standing; adding evidence risked justifying parole search.	Tran had no standing to challenge the search; counsel’s performance was not deficient.
Does the exclusionary rule/good faith exception apply?	Evidence should be suppressed as fruit of Fourth Amendment violation.	Parole exception/good faith excused the search.	No good faith here; exclusionary rule applies.

Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (establishes warrantless searches onto curtilage of home as Fourth Amendment violations)
Collins v. Virginia, 584 U.S. 586 (2018) (extends curtilage protection to areas immediately surrounding home)
Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984) (holds curtilage is afforded Fourth Amendment protection distinct from open fields)
United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (sets out multi-factor test for determining curtilage).
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel).
Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998) (distinguishes between overnight guests and casual visitors for Fourth Amendment standing).