United States v. Perea-Rey
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10941
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Border Patrol observed Garcia cross the border and travel by taxi to Perea-Rey's residence in Calexico, CA.
- Agent Trujillo approached from the street, followed Garcia into the carport area, and detained both men for several minutes without explaining his presence.
- Garcia knocked on the front door; Perea-Rey opened it and gestured toward the carport, where agents confronted the men.
- Agents, with weapons drawn, commanded everyone outside and later searched the home after learning there were more undocumented aliens inside.
- District court found the carport within curtilage but that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy; evidence from the home was suppressed, other aliens’ evidence was admitted, and Perea-Rey pleaded guilty to one count.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held the carport was curtilage and the warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment, reversing and remanding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the carport curtilage of the home? | Perea-Rey argues Dunn factors place carport within curtilage. | N/A | Yes; carport is curtilage. |
| Did warrantless entry into the curtilage violate the Fourth Amendment? | Carport entry did not violate due to knock-and-talk or observation rights. | N/A | Yes, it violated the Fourth Amendment. |
| Does the knock-and-talk exception justify entry into the curtilage without a warrant? | Knock-and-talk permits consensual contact within curtilage. | N/A | Not permissible here; not a consensual encounter; violated rights. |
| Can the government rely on the knock-and-talk to justify detentions or searches within the curtilage under current precedent? | Knock-and-talk could extend to consensual contact and subsequent searches. | N/A | No; knock-and-talk does not authorize warrantless detentions/searches; warrants required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunn v. United States, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (Dunn factors guide curtilage determination)
- United States v. Struckman, 603 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2010) (curtilage protections and searches within curtilage)
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (physical intrusion on protected area constitutes a search)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (home-entry searches presumptively unreasonable without warrant)
- California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) (observations from public vantage do not authorize entry without warrant)
- Davis v. United States, 327 F.2d 301 (9th Cir. 1964) (origins of knock-and-talk concept)
- Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (2011) (limits subjective officer intent in reasonableness analysis)
- United States v. Troop, 514 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2008) (knock-and-talk limitations in curtilage contexts)