United States v. John Schmidt, Jr., 700 F.3d 934

Milwaukee police investigated gunshots near South 10th St and West Orchard St; a shooting victim was later found at a hospital.
An officer entered a shared backyard at 1420/1422 South 10th Street without a warrant and found a rifle.
The backyard is shared with 1424/1426 South 10th Street and is largely enclosed by fences with a wooden barrier blocking part of the yard.
Casings and bullet holes were observed in the yard and adjacent duplex, supporting the investigation.
Schmidt, a felon, was charged with felon in possession of a firearm; he challenged suppression, arguing the backyard was curtilage and search unwarranted as time and police presence increased.
The district court denied suppression; Schmidt pled guilty under a conditional plea and appealed the denial arguing exigent circumstances were lacking.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry into the backyard	Schmidt argues time and police presence negate exigency	State contends exigent aid to potential victims justified entry	Exigent circumstances justified entry despite time/pass of hours
Whether the rifle was properly seized under plain view	Proceeding objects not adequately circumscribed by exigency	Plain view of scope and breech linked rifle to the gunshots	Rifle seized under plain-view doctrine; probable cause supported seizure

United States v. Cellitti, 387 F.3d 618 (7th Cir. 2004) (plain view after lawful presence supports seizure)
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2006) (emergency aid justifies entry when imminent danger exists)
United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (U.S. 2012) (post-searches involving curtilage relevance to Fourth Amendment)
United States v. Willis, 37 F.3d 313 (7th Cir. 1994) (plain-view gun sufficiently incriminating)
Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (U.S. 2011) (exigent circumstances in search and seizure)
Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1987) (plain view allowed when lawfully present)