United States v. Chris Bausby, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14011

Police responded to a tip that a motorcycle displayed in the fenced front yard of Bausby’s Kansas City home matched the VIN of a motorcycle reported stolen by Eric Haase.
Officers entered the front yard through an unlocked chain‑link gate, knocked at the front door, then checked the motorcycle’s VIN and confirmed it matched the stolen VIN.
Officers observed additional vehicles in a shared driveway, some with missing VINs and at least one reported stolen; property‑crimes detectives were summoned and obtained a warrant after an officer returned to prepare an affidavit.
Bausby arrived, was arrested on an outstanding warrant, and told officers he had paperwork proving ownership; officers prevented him (and a witness) from retrieving or presenting those documents while securing the scene.
A state search warrant was issued; during the search officers found a shotgun. Bausby was federally charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), moved to suppress the firearm, pled guilty conditionally reserving the suppression appeal, and the district court denied suppression.

Issue	Bausby’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Whether officers’ warrantless entry into the fenced front yard violated the Fourth Amendment because the yard was curtilage	The fenced front yard is curtilage of the home; entry without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment	The front yard was not curtilage (or, alternatively, entry was a permissible limited intrusion for legitimate law‑enforcement purposes)	The majority: yard not curtilage (entry lawful). Concurrence: would find curtilage but upheld entry as a limited, legitimate intrusion.
Whether Detective Straubel’s warrant affidavit omitted material facts (Bausby’s offer of paperwork proving ownership) such that under Franks the warrant should be voided	Omission of Bausby’s attempted offer of ownership papers was intentional or reckless and, if included, would defeat probable cause	Officers secured the scene for safety and to prevent evidence destruction; the affiant was unaware of Bausby’s offer and there was no intentional or reckless omission	District court and this court: no clear error that omission was deliberate or reckless; Franks relief denied.

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (public exposure defeats expectation of privacy)
Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (four‑factor test for curtilage)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (standard for voiding a warrant based on false statements or intentional omissions)
United States v. Boyster, 436 F.3d 986 (8th Cir. 2006) (discussing curtilage factors)
United States v. Robbins, 682 F.3d 1111 (8th Cir. 2012) (limited knock‑and‑talk intrusion into curtilage can be reasonable)