State v. Howard -Motion to suppress
315 P.3d 854
Idaho Ct. App.2013Background
- Howard challenged suppression of marijuana plants found in a shed on curtilage of his home after officers smelled marijuana at the front door.
- Officers, following an anonymous tip about a marijuana grow, entered private road (Road) they believed public, but it was private with no trespassing sign nearby.
- The officers knocked at the front door; at that moment odor of marijuana wafted to them from the residence.
- District court credited officers’ testimony that they did not enter the curtilage again after the front-door approach, and allowed a search based on implied consent.
- Howard argued Jardines v. Florida controls, and alternatively that a no-trespassing sign revoked any implied invitation; credibility determinations favored the officers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Jardines bar warrantless entry onto curtilage at the front door? | Howard argues Jardines makes the curtilage entry unlawful. | Howard contends the odor observation from curtilage was a search violation. | No Fourth Amendment violation; entry within implicit license. |
| Did a posted no trespassing sign revoke the implied invitation to enter the curtilage? | Howard cites Christensen to show revocation through unambiguous signage. | Howard argues sign ambiguity and distance from curtilage undermined revocation. | Sign ineffective to revoke implied license; no revocation. |
| Was the district court's credibility determinations supportable? | Howard asserts the officers’ curtilage observations were true; warrants reversal. | State maintains credibility determinations properly resolved conflicting testimony in favor of officers. | Credibility determinations not disturbed; findings upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jardines v. Florida, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013) (U.S. Sup. Ct. 2013) (curtilage is part of the home; cannot extend license for dog sniff; implied license exists for front-door approach)
- Christensen v. State, 953 P.2d 583 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1998) (no trespassing sign near curtilage can revoke implied invitation if unambiguous)
- State v. Tietsort, 175 P.3d 801 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007) (framework for evaluating curtilage and observations used in searches)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. _, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (U.S. Supreme Court 2011) (implicit license concepts; knock and talk limitations)