Kelley v. State
347 P.3d 1012
| Alaska Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Two Alaska state troopers arrived at Kelley’s rural residence at approximately 12:30 a.m. in response to an anonymous tip about growing marijuana.
- The officers remained in their idling patrol car, rolled down the windows, and sniffed the air, allegedly detecting marijuana odor.
- A warrant was obtained and the search yielded marijuana plants and equipment indicating a commercial grow operation.
- Kelley moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the midnight driveway intrusion into the curtilage violated the Fourth Amendment and Alaska Constitution.
- The trial court denied suppression; Kelley was convicted at a bench trial; appeal followed, with Jardines briefing added during the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the midnight driveway sniffing violated the Fourth Amendment | Kelley contends the intrusion into curtilage was unlawful. | State argues the driveway provided public ingress/egress and night timing is irrelevant. | Unlawful entry; suppression warranted |
| Whether the public-access exception applies to late-night curtilage entry | Public access does not authorize nighttime intrusion for criminal investigations. | Public access exception extends to normal ingress/egress regardless of time. | Not applicable to late-night intrusion; violates curtilage privacy |
| What role Jardines plays in defining implied license scope (time and purpose) | Jardines supports limiting intrusive nighttime police activity on private property. | Jardines is distinguishable and not controlling for this case. | Jardines informs but does not override this conclusion; the nighttime entry remains unlawful |
| Does suppression as the remedy flow from the unlawful search | Evidence obtained via the tainted warrant should be suppressed. | Evidence should not be suppressed merely because of the midnight entry. | Suppression affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013) (implicit license to approach home limited by purpose and manner)
- State v. Ross, 4 P.3d 130 (Wash. 2000) (midnight entry to search for evidence was unlawful)
- Commonwealth v. Ousley, 393 S.W.3d 15 (Ky. 2013) (time of day matters for curtilage intrusion)
- Cada, 129 Idaho 224, 923 P.2d 469 (Idaho App. 1996) (nighttime intrusion factors in evaluating implied invitation)
- Pistro v. State, 590 P.2d 884 (Alaska 1979) (curtilage and implied license considerations in Alaska)
- Wallace v. State, 933 P.2d 1157 (Alaska App. 1997) (limitations on nighttime police intrusion and privacy interests)