Joseph Watson v. Patrick Pearson
928 F.3d 507
6th Cir.2019Background
- In Dec. 2013 Officers Mendez and Talbott (and Pearson) went to Watson’s residence to serve a civil levy; Watson exited, said the house belonged to his girlfriend, and that he had left his keys inside.
- Officers asked for property to levy; Watson produced change and was told he was free to leave.
- After Watson left, officers continued at the front door, checked the knob, walked around the exterior "to look for items that could possibly be levied," smelled marijuana from a crawl-space vent, and observed what they described as partially smoked marijuana joints.
- Based on those observations (plus tips and Watson’s record) they obtained a search warrant and found large quantities of marijuana and evidence of sale inside.
- State courts suppressed the evidence; Watson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming a Fourth Amendment violation for the warrantless curtilage search; the district court found a Fourth Amendment violation but granted officers qualified immunity, prompting this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers’ warrantless entry/search of the curtilage violated the Fourth Amendment | Watson: entry and search of curtilage without warrant or consent violated his expectation of privacy (he had status as at least a guest) | Officers: Watson disclaimed privacy interest (not resident/owner) so property could be treated as abandoned | Violation: Court holds officers searched curtilage without valid exception and thus violated Fourth Amendment |
| Whether Watson disclaimed any privacy interest / property was abandoned | Watson: his statements that girlfriend lived there and keys inside show he retained an expectation of privacy (overnight/social guest) | Officers: his statement that he didn’t live there showed abandonment or disclaimer | Court: No reasonable officer could conclude abandonment; Watson communicated a privacy interest (at least guest status) |
| Whether "knock-and-talk" or implied license authorized walking around and searching curtilage | Watson: knock-and-talk doesn’t allow rummaging/searching curtilage; officers’ stated purpose was to search for levyable items | Officers: Hardesty and similar precedents allowed walking around to contact occupants; thus conduct was reasonable | Court: Even under pre-Jardines law Hardesty/Turk did not authorize purposeful searches of curtilage; Jardines restricted approach; officers exceeded implied license |
| Whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity | Watson: rights were clearly established that curtilage search without warrant or valid exception was unconstitutional | Officers: law was unsettled re: scope of knock-and-talk and abandonment in 2013; reasonable mistake possible | Court: Rights were clearly established in 2013; qualified immunity denied; summary judgment reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (Sup. Ct.) (abandonment doctrine applied to vacated hotel rooms and similar contexts)
- Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (Sup. Ct.) (overnight guests have a legitimate expectation of privacy)
- Jacob v. Township of W. Bloomfield, 531 F.3d 385 (6th Cir.) (curtilage receives strong Fourth Amendment protection)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct.) (police may approach front path and knock but cannot use detection dogs or intrude into curtilage without warrant)
- Hardesty v. Hamburg Township, 461 F.3d 646 (6th Cir.) (pre-Jardines case permitting certain knock-and-talk approaches to rear of house)
- Morgan v. Fairfield County, 903 F.3d 553 (6th Cir.) (post-Jardines recognition that Jardines overruled Hardesty/Turk)