United States v. Wells
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16330
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Wells was indicted for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine.
- Police received a confidential tip and observed two open doors at Wells’s property early morning.
- Officers conducted a knock-and-talk and observed a lighted outbuilding with odor of marijuana.
- A subsequent arrest occurred outside the outbuilding, and a search warrant later yielded 34 items.
- District court suppressed all evidence as obtained in the curtilage of Wells’s home without a warrant.
- Government appeals the suppression order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the unpaved driveway/backyard is curtilage. | Wells contends the driveway/backyard area is not curtilage. | Government argues some portion was not private or was outside curtilage. | Yes, it is curtilage; de novo review applied and the area is protected. |
| Whether entering the curtilage without consent or warrant was reasonable. | Wells argues entry was unlawful absent consent, warrant, or exigent circumstances. | Government relies on knock-and-talk/implied consent for entry. | Entry was not justified; knock-and-talk does not validate entry into curtilage. |
| Whether the knock-and-talk principle applies to a backyard entry. | Not applicable; homeowner not contacted at front door. | Implied consent for routine entries into accessible areas. | Knock-and-talk not applicable; cannot justify entering the backyard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984) (curtilage tied to home protection; definition of curtilage)
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (four-factor Dunn test for curtilage proximity and protection)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (reasonable expectation of privacy concept)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (limits of plain view and warrant requirements)
- Reed v. Maestas, 733 F.2d 492 (1984) (knock-and-talk and areas generally accessible to visitors)