Without Probable Cause, Conducting a Search After Entering a Yard Is Illegal

Police officers may sometimes believe that they can use an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that a search be supported by a warrant that describes the probable cause. One exception is what is called a “knock and talk.” In State v. Wilson, the Supreme Court held that officers could not rely on the “knock and talk” exception when they did not have an implicit license to enter Wilson’s backyard, nor were they in hot pursuit when they did so.

A caller reported that a driver who was wearing bright orange shoes was driving a BMW erratically. The caller reported that the BMW had entered private property where it was parked. The property was surrounded by high walls. The officers entered the property, where they found the BMW matching the description. They knocked on the side door of the garage and were greeted by Wilson, who wore bright orange shoes and was slurring his speech. The officers searched Wilson's car, and they found an unlicensed handgun. They searched Wilson and found a prescription pill bottle in someone else's name.

Wilson moved to suppress all evidence that officers seized once they entered his yard. Under principles of Constitutional law, the yard is considered to be "curtilage" and has the same status as the home. Wilson claimed that officers lacked probable cause at the time they entered his yard, and there were no exigent circumstances that justified the search.

This Was an Illegal Search and Not a “Knock and Talk”

The Court sided with Wilson and suppressed all the evidence seized. The state had claimed that officers were engaging in a “knock and talk.” However, a unanimous Court found that what the officer did was a full-fledged search as opposed to a “knock and talk,” which is considered to be an investigative technique.

Here, the warrantless entry into Wilson's curtilage was presumptively unreasonable. The state's argument that the officers were in hot pursuit was unavailing because Wilson was already in his home. The officers did not follow him onto the property when he was fleeing. Instead, they entered his property, which was surrounded by high walls, and knocked on Wilson's side garage door. Without a valid exception to the requirement for probable cause, the search was unreasonable.

Your attorney can and should challenge any evidence being used against you that was seized in violation of your Constitutional rights. You would only know that your rights have been violated when you hire an attorney who can review your case and the legality of the search. Your attorney would know the principles of criminal law that can be used to file a petition to suppress the wrongfully seized evidence.

Contact an Eau Claire Criminal Defense Attorney Today

If you have been charged with a crime, the attorneys at the Cohen Law Offices can vigorously represent you, standing up when your legal rights have been violated, as Wilson’s were here. You can schedule a free consultation when you message us online or call us today at 715-382-9447.