State v. Bash
412 S.C. 420
| S.C. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Berkeley County officers received an anonymous tip about drug activity at a home on Nelson Ferry Road, Moncks Corner.
- Officers Holbrook and Milks approached the property, wearing Sheriff’s vests, after radioing other units about their visit.
- From a public road, they observed several people in the backyard near an old shed and Bash’s black truck.
- The officers pulled into a grassy area behind Bash’s truck; a man dropped a baggie with a white powdery substance, and another fled toward a wooded area.
- Bash remained; Holbrook asked him to step to the tailgate area while other officers conducted the arrest of the first man.
- Holbrook looked into Bash’s truck window, seeing drug-weighing scales and a large plastic baggie with a white powdery substance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entering the grassy area behind the home violated the Fourth Amendment | Bash | Bash | Entry did not violate Fourth Amendment |
| Whether the encounter amounted to an unlawful search without a warrant or exceptions | Bash | Bash | Lawful under knock and talk with reasonable belief of homeowner presence |
| Whether the initial intrusion into curtilage was permissible given the tip and observations | Bash | Bash | Reasonable under Wright/ Alvarez framework; not an unlawful entry |
| Whether evidence found in plain view after permissible entry is admissible | Bash | Bash | Plain view doctrine applied; seizure valid |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wright, 391 S.C. 436 (2011) (investigative entry to front door to pursue tip allowed; may enter backyard for knock and talk)
- Alvarez v. Montgomery Cnty., 147 F.3d 354 (4th Cir. 1998) (backyard entry permitted when reasonably pursuing a legitimate, non-search purpose)
- Covey v. Assessor of Ohio Cnty., 777 F.3d 186 (4th Cir. 2015) (may bypass front door if reasonably believe homeowner is elsewhere on property)
- U.S. v. Bradshaw, 490 F.2d 1097 (4th Cir. 1974) (legitimate incursion to question near property; back door approach may be permissible)
- Herring v. State, 387 S.C. 201 (Ct.App. 2009) ( Fourth Amendment reasonableness focuses on objective circumstances)
- State v. Vinson, 400 S.C. 347 (Ct.App. 2012) (police intentions do not control Fourth Amendment analysis)
- U.S. v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (curtilage factors forFourth Amendment analysis)