THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

The State, Respondent, 

v. 

Walter M. Bash, Petitioner. 

Appellate Case No. 2015-001582 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 

Appeal from Berkeley County 

Stephanie P. McDonald, Circuit Court Judge 

Opinion No. 27692 

Heard September 7, 2016 – Filed December 21, 2016 

REVERSED 

Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia, 

for Petitioner. 

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant 

Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of 

Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of 

Charleston; for Respondent. 

JUSTICE FEW: Walter Bash was indicted for trafficking in cocaine and cocaine 

base. The circuit court found officers conducted an illegal search, and suppressed 

18
	
the drugs. The State appealed. The court of appeals reversed the circuit court's 

suppression order and remanded for trial. We issued a writ of certiorari to review 

the court of appeals' decision. We now reverse the court of appeals and reinstate 

the circuit court's order suppressing the evidence. 

I. Facts and Procedural History 

The Berkeley County Sheriff's Office drug enforcement unit received an 

anonymous tip that "drug activity" was occurring at a home on Nelson Ferry Road 

near Moncks Corner. An unnamed officer in the drug enforcement unit relayed the 

tip to Sergeant Lee Holbrook, who was patrolling the area with Sergeant Kimberly 

Milks. Sergeant Holbrook testified, "We were in the Moncks Corner area . . . , and 

one of the agents . . . received . . . a phone call stating that there was drug activity 

at a particular residence, and we . . . drove over there and handled it." 

He explained that as they located the house they noticed some men "behind the 

house in a grassy area." To get to the grassy area, Sergeant Holbrook turned his 

vehicle off Nelson Ferry Road onto a public dirt road called Shine Bash Lane that 

ran along the side of the property where the house was located. Sergeant Holbrook 

testified, "As we travelled down . . . Shine Bash, there were several [men] standing 

. . . by this little shed, and there was a pickup truck pulled in onto the grass area." 

The "small utility shed" was just outside a fence surrounding the home. Sergeant 

Milks testified "as we go down Shine Bash Lane, there's a tree that you can see 

through [into] the yard" where she saw a pickup truck and three men. The officers 

pulled off of Shine Bash Lane onto the property, approximately twenty feet from 

the grassy area where the men were standing. 

The officers exited the car to talk to the men. Sergeant Milks testified there were 

two men by a grill and a third man at the back of the truck. Sergeant Holbrook 

testified one of the men "thr[ew] down . . . what appeared to be cocaine," and 

"almost instantly" afterward, a fourth man opened the passenger door of the truck 

and ran into the nearby woods. Sergeant Milks and several other officers chased 

the man while Sergeant Holbrook detained the men remaining in the grassy area. 

This group included Bash, who got out of the driver's side of the truck. After 

detaining the men, Sergeant Holbrook looked through the window of Bash's truck 

to see "if there [were] other individuals in that truck hiding." He saw "in plain 

view what appeared to be cocaine weighing scales" and "cocaine base." Sergeant 

Holbrook arrested Bash. A grand jury subsequently indicted him for trafficking 

19
	
 

 

"four hundred grams or more" of cocaine in violation of subsection 44-53-

370(e)(2)(e) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2016), and trafficking "ten grams 

or more, but less than twenty-eight grams" of cocaine base in violation of 

subsection 44-53-375(C)(1) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2016). 

Prior to trial, Bash moved to suppress the drugs. He argued the police violated the 

Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution by entering the curtilage of 

the home without a warrant to conduct a search. The circuit court granted Bash's 

motion. The court of appeals reversed the circuit court's decision to suppress the 

evidence. State v. Bash, 412 S.C. 420, 772 S.E.2d 537 (Ct. App. 2015). We 

granted Bash's petition for certiorari. 

II. Fourth Amendment 

The people's right under the Fourth Amendment to "be secure in their persons, 

houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," U.S. 

CONST. amend. IV, "extends . . . to . . . the curtilage of the home," State v. Herring, 

387 S.C. 201, 209, 692 S.E.2d 490, 494 (2009) (citing United States v. Dunn, 480 

U.S. 294, 107 S. Ct. 1134, 94 L. Ed. 2d 326 (1987) and Rogers v. Pendleton, 249 

F.3d 279, 287 (4th Cir. 2001)). "Warrantless searches and seizures are 

unreasonable absent a recognized exception to the warrant requirement." State v. 

Wright, 391 S.C. 436, 442, 706 S.E.2d 324, 327 (2011) (citing Mincey v. Arizona, 

437 U.S. 385, 390, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2412, 57 L.Ed.2d 290, 298-99 (1978)). 

"On appeals from a motion to suppress based on Fourth Amendment grounds, . . . 

this Court reviews questions of law de novo." State v. Adams, 409 S.C. 641, 647, 

763 S.E.2d 341, 344 (2014). As to a circuit court's finding of fact, we must affirm 

"if there is any evidence to support it," and "may reverse only for clear error." 

State v. Brown, 401 S.C. 82, 87, 736 S.E.2d 263, 265 (2012). 

III. Curtilage 

The circuit court ruled the grassy area where Bash and the other men were standing 

when the officers approached them was part of the curtilage of the home.1 The 

1 The court of appeals stated "it is unclear whether the circuit court ruled on 

whether the grassy area at issue was part of the curtilage." 412 S.C. at 425 n.4, 772 

S.E.2d at 540 n.4. We disagree that the ruling is unclear. Preliminary to its ruling, 

20
	
 

 

curtilage of a home is "the land immediately surrounding and associated with the 

home" and is "part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes." Oliver v. 

United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180, 104 S. Ct. 1735, 1742, 80 L. Ed. 2d 214, 225 

(1984). As we have stated, curtilage can include "outbuildings, yard around 

dwelling, garden." State v. Wiggins, 330 S.C. 538, 548 n.15, 500 S.E.2d 489, 494 

n.15 (1998) (discussing curtilage in the context of the duty to retreat under the law 

of self-defense (citing 40 Am. Jur. 2d Homicide § 168 (1968))); see also 79 C.J.S. 

Searches § 34 (2006) ("The curtilage is defined by reference to the factors that 

determine whether an individual reasonably may expect that an area immediately 

adjacent to the home will remain private. It is the area to which extends the 

intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a person's home and the privacies 

of life. The primary focus is whether the area harbors those intimate activities 

associated with domestic life and the privacies of the home." (footnotes omitted)). 

We find there is evidence in the record to support the circuit court's determination 

that the grassy area was within the curtilage of the home. First, both Sergeant 

Holbrook and Sergeant Milks described the grassy area as part of the "backyard" or 

"yard area." The grassy area included a grill, and Sergeant Milks testified that 

when she got out of the vehicle she "saw the two [men] over by the grill." The use 

of a grill is an activity closely associated with the use of a home.2 The area also 

included a shed, and the area was located only a few feet from a fence surrounding 

the home. In the short distance between the fence and the grassy area, there was a 

the circuit court engaged in extensive discussion with counsel about the legal 

concept of curtilage and the facts in the record relating to those principles. Then, 

explaining its ruling, the circuit court stated the officers "suited up and went into 

the curtilage of this . . . house based on an anonymous tip alone." 

2 See United States v. Burston, 806 F.3d 1123, 1127 (8th Cir. 2015) (finding the 

presence of a cooking grill indicated the resident "made personal use of the area," 

and thus the grill was one fact supporting a determination the area was part of the 

curtilage); Hardesty v. Hamburg Twp., 461 F.3d 646, 652 (6th Cir. 2006) (noting 

the fact the defendants "frequently kept a grill" on their porch as supporting the 

existence of the area as part of the curtilage). 

21
	
 

 

 

clothes line.3 Additionally, Shine Bash Lane—though a public road—is a short 

dirt road that reaches only a few residences. It runs very close to the home and 

comes to a dead end on the property where the home sits. Large trees line the side 

of the road between Shine Bash Lane and the home. These trees continue past the 

shed and partially block sight from the road to the grassy area where the men were 

standing. Sergeant Milks testified she had to look through a tree to see into the 

yard from Shine Bash Lane.4

 Finally, the circuit court had before it numerous 

photographs showing the house, the yard, and the extent to which the grassy area 

was connected to the home and concealed from public view. 

The State points out the Supreme Court of the United States has identified four 

factors courts should consider in deciding whether an area is part of the curtilage of 

a home, citing Dunn, 480 U.S. at 301, 107 S. Ct. at 1139, 94 L. Ed. 2d at 334-35. 

The Dunn court stated: 

Drawing upon the Court's own cases and the cumulative 

experience of the lower courts that have grappled with 

the task of defining the extent of a home's curtilage, we 

believe that curtilage questions should be resolved with 

particular reference to four factors: the proximity of the 

area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area 

is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, 

the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the 

steps taken by the resident to protect the area from 

observation by people passing by. 

Id. The State argues "the circuit court judge did not appear to have considered any 

of the factors." However, the record indicates the circuit court was aware of and 

did consider Dunn. Near the end of the hearing, the State cited Dunn and offered 

3 See United States v. Jenkins, 124 F.3d 768, 773 (6th Cir. 1997) (finding the 

defendants using the area "for such things as hanging their wet laundry on a 

clothesline to dry" was one fact supporting a finding the area was curtilage). 

4 See United States v. Johnson, 256 F.3d 895, 902 (9th Cir. 2001) ("[I]n rural 

pieces of property . . . , natural boundaries such as thick trees or shrubberies may 

also indicate an area 'to which the activity of home life extends.'" (citation 

omitted)). 

22
	
 

to provide a copy of it to the court. The circuit court immediately responded, "I 

have it." 

In Dunn, the Supreme Court stated "these factors are useful analytical tools only to 

the degree that, in any given case, they bear upon the centrally relevant 

consideration—whether the area in question is so intimately tied to the home itself 

that it should be placed under the home's 'umbrella' of Fourth Amendment 

protection." 480 U.S. at 301, 107 S. Ct. at 1140, 94 L. Ed. 2d at 335; see also 

United States v. Jackson, 728 F.3d 367, 373-74 (4th Cir. 2013) (stating the 

Supreme Court "cautioned" for the limited use of the Dunn factors). While the 

circuit court should have made findings as to the Dunn factors,5

 we find the court's 

analysis was properly focused on the "centrally relevant consideration" the 

Supreme Court identified in Dunn. 

We find the circuit court correctly applied the applicable principles of law 

regarding curtilage, and the evidence supports the court's factual finding that the 

grassy area in the backyard was sufficiently tied to the home to be within the 

curtilage. Therefore, we affirm the circuit court's finding the area where the 

officers encountered Bash was within the curtilage of the home. 

IV. Search 

A law enforcement officer must have a warrant to enter a home for the purpose of 

conducting a search, see State v. Counts, 413 S.C. 153, 163, 776 S.E.2d 59, 65 

(2015) (stating "the Fourth Amendment requires the police to have a warrant in 

order to conduct a search"), unless an exception applies, see State v. Brown, 401 

S.C. 82, 89, 736 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2012) (listing exceptions to the warrant 

requirement). See generally State v. Robinson, 410 S.C. 519, 526, 765 S.E.2d 564, 

568 (2014) (stating "warrantless searches and seizures inside a man's home are 

5

 After reciting the four factors, the Dunn Court engaged in an extensive analysis 

of them. 480 U.S. at 302-03, 107 S. Ct. at 1140, 94 L. Ed. 2d at 335-36. In this 

case, however, the State never requested the circuit court to make findings as to the 

Dunn factors, and the State did not object to the circuit court's failure to do so. 

Thus, we question whether any error in the lack of findings on the Dunn factors is 

preserved for our review. See State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 

693 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must 

have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge."). 

23
	
presumptively unreasonable absent a recognized exception to the warrant 

requirement"). This protection "extends . . . to . . . the curtilage of the home." 

Herring, 387 S.C. at 209, 692 S.E.2d at 494; see also Covey v. Assessor of Ohio 

Cty., 777 F.3d 186, 192 (4th Cir. 2015) ("The Fourth Amendment protects homes 

and the 'land immediately surrounding and associated' with homes, known as 

curtilage . . . ." (quoting Oliver, 466 U.S. at 180, 104 S. Ct. at 1742, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 

225). The circuit court determined the officers in this case entered the curtilage for 

the purpose of conducting a search, and thus violated the Fourth Amendment 

because they did not have a warrant and no exception applied. 

When officers "physically occup[y] private property for the purpose of obtaining 

information," a search has occurred. United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. ___, ___, 

132 S. Ct. 945, 949, 181 L. Ed. 2d 911, 918 (2012). The majority in Jones 

explained: 

Whatever new methods of investigation may be devised, 

our task, at a minimum, is to decide whether the action in 

question would have constituted a "search" within the 

original meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Where, as 

here, the Government obtains information by physically 

intruding on a constitutionally protected area, such a 

search has undoubtedly occurred. 

565 U.S. at ___ n.3, 132 S. Ct. at 950–951 n.3, 181 L. Ed. 2d at 919 n.3; see also 

565 U.S. at ___, 132 S. Ct. at 954, 181 L. Ed. 2d at 923 (Sotomayor, J., 

concurring) ("I join the Court's opinion because I agree that a search within the 

meaning of the Fourth Amendment occurs, at a minimum, '[w]here, as here, the 

Government obtains information by physically intruding on a constitutionally 

protected area.'"); United States v. DE L'Isle, 825 F.3d 426, 431 (8th Cir. 2016) ("It 

is clear that a physical intrusion or trespass by a government official constitutes a 

search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."); United States v. PereaRey, 680 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir. 2012) ("Warrantless trespasses by the 

government into the home or its curtilage are Fourth Amendment searches."). Cf. 

Jackson, 728 F.3d at 373 (affirming "the district court's conclusion that the officers' 

actions did not involve an unlicensed physical intrusion of a constitutionally 

protected area" and thus was not "an illegal search or seizure" and noting "if [the 

officers] breached the curtilage of Cox's apartment . . . , it would be fairly clear that 

their actions . . . would implicate the protections of the Fourth Amendment"). 

24
	
In this case, after receiving an anonymous tip indicating illegal activity was 

occurring at the home, the officers "drove over there and handled it." Sergeant 

Holbrook told Sergeant Milks, "Hey, let's go . . . we need to check out this drug tip 

that we got." On their way, they radioed other officers to meet them there, and 

they arrived at the home with other officers in cars behind them. Sergeant Milks 

testified that on their way, "We put on our vests, our hat . . . that we wear that says 

'Sheriff' on it; a vest that says 'Sheriff' on it." Later, when applying for a warrant to 

search the home, Sergeant Milks signed an affidavit stating, "Members of the 

Berkeley County drug enforcement unit were investigating a suspicious complaint 

at . . . Nelson Ferry Road . . . ." When Sergeant Holbrook was asked, "What was 

your reason for pulling on to the grass?" he responded, 

I . . . received a tip that there was some type of active 

drug activity going on at that time. As I approached the 

house, I didn't see anybody around it, and that just caught 

my attention. So, I just simply drove back there, and that 

activity was supposed to be happening in the . . . rear of 

the property, so that was my reasoning . . . I just didn't 

feel the need to actually make contact with the actual 

house. I just went down Shine Bash Lane. 

Based on this evidence, the circuit court found the officers conducted a search. 

The court stated the Fourth Amendment does not "allow you to roll up in 

somebody's backyard when your sole purpose for going there is to search it." The 

court then ruled: 

[The officers] roll[ed] up in the backyard solely to search 

for drugs. And there's no reasonable interpretation of the 

officers' testimony other than that's why they were there. 

They were not there to politely ask the homeowner, Hey, 

are you selling drugs out of your house? They were there 

to see if they could find any. 

The State contends that the officers did not conduct a search, but entered the 

property simply to conduct a "knock and talk." The court of appeals accepted the 

State's argument. Bash, 412 S.C. at 428, 772 S.E.2d at 541. A knock and talk 

"occurs when a law enforcement officer . . . approaches a residence by a route 

25
	
 

 

available to the general public, knocks on the front door of the residence, and 

speaks with an occupant of the residence who responds to the knocking." 68 Am. 

Jur. 2d Searches and Seizures § 21 (2010).6

 A knock and talk is not a search under 

the Fourth Amendment. State v. Counts, 413 S.C. 153, 164-65, 776 S.E.2d 59, 66 

(2015) (discussing the knock-and-talk procedure in detail); see also United States 

v. Walker, 799 F.3d 1361, 1364 n.1 (11th Cir. 2015) (stating "a warrantless . . . 

knock and talk . . . is not considered a search"); Rogers v. Pendleton, 249 F.3d 279, 

289–90 (4th Cir. 2001) ("[P]olice officers do not need a warrant to do what any 

private citizen may legitimately do—approach a home to speak to the 

inhabitants."). 

We agree with the circuit court the officers conducted a search of the grassy area, 

not a knock and talk. First, Sergeant Holbrook testified, "So instead of actually 

approaching the house and conducting a knock and talk investigation, we just 

simply drove toward the backyard." Second, and more importantly, all of the 

circumstances surrounding the officers' entry into the grassy area objectively 

demonstrate their purpose was to conduct a search of the grassy area, not to speak 

to the homeowner. Sergeants Milks and Holbrook (1) radioed other officers to 

meet them at the home, (2) put on gear indicating they were with the sheriff's 

office, (3) arrived at the home with other officers in cars behind them, and (4) 

bypassed the front of the home. Further—in their testimony and in Milks' 

affidavit—Sergeants Milks and Holbrook gave no indication they were 

approaching the home in order to speak to the homeowner. 

In finding the officers conducted a search—not a knock and talk—the circuit court 

relied in part on Florida v. Jardines, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 185 L. Ed. 2d 

495 (2013). The issue in Jardines was "whether using a drug-sniffing dog on a 

homeowner's porch to investigate the contents of the home is a 'search' within the 

meaning of the Fourth Amendment." ___ U.S. at ___, 133 S. Ct. at 1413, 185 L. 

Ed. 2d at 499; see also ___ U.S. at ___, 133 S. Ct. at 1414, 185 L. Ed. 2d at 500 

("We granted certiorari, limited to the question of whether the officers' behavior 

was a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."). Quoting Jones, the 

6 See also Bash, 412 S.C. at 424-25 n.2, 772 S.E.2d at 539 n.2 ("A knock and talk 

... is a procedure used by police officers to investigate a complaint where there is 

no probable cause for a search warrant. The police officers knock on the door, try 

to make contact with persons inside, and talk to them about the subject of the 

complaints." (quoting State v. Dorsey, 762 S.E.2d 584, 588 n.6 (W. Va. 2014))). 

26
	
 

Supreme Court set forth what it called the "simple baseline" of Fourth Amendment 

protections: "When 'the Government obtains information by physically intruding' 

on persons, houses, papers, or effects, 'a "search" within the original meaning of 

the Fourth Amendment' has 'undoubtedly occurred.'" ___ U.S. at ___, 133 S. Ct. at 

1414, 185 L. Ed. 2d at 500. After finding "the officers' investigation took place in 

a constitutionally protected area"—the curtilage—the Supreme Court "turn[ed] to 

the question of whether [the investigation] was accomplished through an 

unlicensed physical intrusion." ___ U.S. at ___, 133 S. Ct. at 1415, 185 L. Ed. 2d 

at 501-02. 

In answering that question, the Supreme Court discussed the implied license any 

person holds to approach the front door of a home, and knock, and talk. 

"A license may be implied from the habits of the 

country," . . . . We have accordingly recognized that "the 

knocker on the front door is treated as an invitation or 

license to attempt an entry, justifying ingress to the home 

by solicitors, hawkers and peddlers of all kinds." This 

implicit license typically permits the visitor to approach 

the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly 

to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger 

longer) leave. Complying with the terms of that 

traditional invitation does not require fine-grained legal 

knowledge; it is generally managed without incident by 

the Nation's Girl Scouts and trick-or-treaters. Thus, a 

police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a 

home and knock, precisely because that is "no more than 

any private citizen might do." 

___ U.S. at ___, 133 S. Ct. at 1415-16, 185 L. Ed. 2d at 502 (footnote omitted) 

(first quoting McKee v. Gratz, 260 U.S. 127, 136, 43 S. Ct. 16, 17, 67 L. Ed. 167, 

170 (1922); then quoting Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 626, 71 S. Ct. 920, 

924, 95 L. Ed. 1233, 1239 (1951); and then quoting Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 

452, 469, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 1862, 179 L. Ed. 2d 865, 881 (2011)). 

The Supreme Court then referred back to "the question before the court"— 

"whether the officers' conduct was [a] . . . search"—and stated: 

27
	
As we have described, that depends upon whether the 

officers had an implied license to enter the porch, which 

in turn depends upon the purpose for which they entered. 

Here, their behavior objectively reveals a purpose to 

conduct a search, which is not what anyone would think 

he had license to do. 

___ U.S. at ___, 133 S. Ct. at 1416-17, 185 L. Ed. 2d at 503. 

Relying on this reasoning from Jardines, the circuit court in this case found the 

officers' behavior revealed a purpose to conduct a search. The court specifically 

found, "They were not there to [talk to] the homeowner." Going to the front door 

of a home for the purpose of speaking to the homeowner is not an "intrusion" 

because of the implied license to do what any private citizen might do. See 

Rogers, 249 F.3d at 289–90 (stating "police officers do not need a warrant to do 

what any private citizen may legitimately do—approach a home to speak to the 

inhabitants"); Wright, 391 S.C. at 444, 706 S.E.2d at 328 (stating, "A policeman 

may lawfully go to a person's home" and "go up to the door"). Rather, the circuit 

court found the officers were there "to see if they could find any [drugs]," a 

mission no homeowner licenses a police officer to enter their private property to 

undertake. See Jardines, ___ U.S. at ___, 133 S. Ct. at 1416, 185 L. Ed. 2d at 502-

03. Thus, the circuit court found the officers in this case had no license to enter the 

grassy area, and therefore when they did so they physically intruded onto private 

property to conduct a search—not a knock and talk. Because no exception to the 

warrant requirement applied and there was no warrant, the officers violated the 

Fourth Amendment. 

As Jardines makes clear, the circuit court was correct to focus on the purpose of 

the officers' actions. As we have explained, the officers' behavior in this case 

demonstrates objectively the purpose of searching for drugs. We also note the 

officers' subjective intent is consistent with their objective purpose. Sergeant 

Holbrook testified that "instead of actually approaching the house and conducting a 

knock and talk investigation, we just simply drove toward the backyard." Sergeant 

Milks said the same thing in her affidavit, they "were investigating a suspicious 

complaint," not looking for the homeowner. 

The court of appeals found the circuit court erred by relying on the officers' intent. 

See Bash, 412 S.C. at 430-31,772 S.E.2d at 542-43 ("We conclude the circuit 

28
	
 

court's injection of the officers' subjective intent into its analysis was an error of 

law."). We find the circuit court did not err. While even this court has made 

statements to the effect that the subjective intent of the officer is irrelevant,7

 that 

principle of law does not apply to the question of whether officers conducted a 

search. The Supreme Court explained in Jardines: 

The State points to our decisions holding that the 

subjective intent of the officer is irrelevant. But those 

cases merely hold that a stop or search that is objectively 

reasonable is not vitiated by the fact that the officer's real 

reason for making the stop or search has nothing to do 

with the validating reason. 

___ U.S. at ___, 133 S. Ct. at 1416, 185 L. Ed. 2d at 503. 

Thus, when an officer's actions are objectively reasonable under the Fourth 

Amendment, the officer's subjective intent to the contrary will not invalidate the 

officer's actions. Here, the officers' subjective intent to conduct a search for drugs 

is consistent with the circuit court's finding regarding their objective purpose. 

The court of appeals also relied on Wright to support its conclusion the officers in 

this case did not conduct a search. Quoting Wright, the court of appeals stated, "A 

police officer without a warrant is privileged to enter private property to 

investigate a complaint or a report of an ongoing crime." Bash, 412 S.C. at 426– 

27, 772 S.E.2d at 540 (quoting Wright, 391 S.C. at 444, 706 S.E.2d at 328). The 

quoted statement from Wright—applicable there—is not applicable here. The key 

distinction between this case and Wright is the officers in Wright had probable 

cause to believe a crime was in progress before they departed their path to the front 

door, and immediately thereafter, they observed exigent circumstances to excuse 

7 See, e.g., State v. Moore, 415 S.C. 245, 252, 781 S.E.2d 897, 901 (2016) 

(regarding an officer's justification for extending a traffic stop); State v. Provet, 

405 S.C. 101, 108, 747 S.E.2d 453, 457 (2013) (regarding the existence of 

reasonable suspicion); Wright, 391 S.C. at 444, 706 S.E.2d at 328 (regarding the 

existence of exigent circumstances); State v. Banda, 371 S.C. 245, 252 n.3, 639 

S.E.2d 36, 40 n.3 (2006) (regarding the existence of reasonable suspicion or 

probable cause); State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 133, 620 S.E.2d 737, 741 

(2005) (regarding the validity of a search incident to arrest). 

29
	
the warrant requirement. From a public road, the officers in Wright "observed a 

large number of vehicles . . . and saw spotlights." 391 S.C. at 445, 706 S.E.2d at 

328. The officers then turned down the private dirt road on their way to the front 

door. Id. We explained: 

The deputies' observations as they drove down the dirt 

road corroborated the anonymous tip and gave them 

ample reason to believe dogfighting was in progress. 

Exigent circumstances developed when the suspects 

started fleeing. Moreover, the presence of dogs created a 

potential danger to the deputies. Hence, the deputies had 

the authority to perform a protective sweep of the 

premises. 

391 S.C. at 445, 706 S.E.2d at 328. 

The officers in Wright, therefore, observed facts that gave rise to probable cause to 

believe a crime was in progress—before they "physically intrud[ed]" onto private 

property—and the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement 

permitted them to proceed without a warrant. See Herring, 387 S.C. at 210, 692 

S.E.2d at 494 ("A fairly perceived need to act on the spot may justify entry and 

search under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement."). In 

this case, on the other hand, Sergeants Holbrook and Milks observed nothing 

incriminating—and therefore did not have probable cause for a search—until after 

they drove onto the grassy area and saw one of the men throw down what appeared 

to be cocaine. 

The court of appeals also stated "the Fourth Circuit has adopted the position police 

may bypass the front door of a residence and proceed to the backyard or other 

entrance for a knock and talk provided they have reason to believe the person they 

are attempting to contact will be found there." Bash, 412 S.C. at 428, 772 S.E.2d 

at 541. For this statement, the court of appeals cited Alvarez v. Montgomery 

County, 147 F.3d 354 (4th Cir. 1998). Id. However, Alvarez does not support the 

court of appeals' conclusion the officers in this case acted within the Fourth 

Amendment. The facts of Alvarez—quite different from the facts of this case—led 

the Fourth Circuit to this basic conclusion: "the officers in this case had a 

'legitimate reason' for entering the Alvarezes' property 'unconnected with a search 

of such premises.'" 147 F.3d at 358. Those facts included (1) the officers "were 

30
	
 

 

responding to a 911 call;" (2) "about an underage drinking party;" (3) where the 

officers found "alcohol containers and . . . awkwardly parked cars;" (4) which 

caused them to "believe[] they had found the party." Id. Also unlike this case, the 

officers actually approached the front door of the Alvarezes' home. 147 F.3d at 

357. When they did so, they observed a sign that read "Party In Back" with "an 

arrow pointing toward the backyard." Id. Following the sign's directive, the 

officers "entered the backyard." Id. The Fourth Circuit specifically found the 

officers did not enter the backyard for the purpose of conducting a search, but 

rather, "They entered the Alvarezes' property simply to notify the homeowner or 

the party's host about the complaint and to ask that no one drive while intoxicated." 

147 F.3d at 358. 

The circuit court in this case found that Sergeants Holbrook and Milks and an 

unknown number of other officers entered the grassy area behind this home not 

simply to speak with the homeowner about the complaint, but rather for the 

purpose of searching for drugs. In making these findings, the circuit court 

correctly applied the applicable principles of law. As to the circuit court's factual 

findings, there is ample evidence in the record to support them. Therefore, the 

court of appeals erred in reversing the circuit court's finding that a search occurred. 

V. Conclusion 

The officers entered the curtilage of this home for the purpose of conducting a 

search for drugs. These actions implicate the Fourth Amendment. Because the 

officers did not have a warrant for the search and no exception to the warrant 

requirement was applicable, the officers violated the Fourth Amendment's 

prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. For this reason, we 

REVERSE the court of appeals,8

 and we reinstate the circuit court's order 

suppressing the drugs. 

PLEICONES, C.J., BEATTY, KITTREDGE, JJ., and Acting Justice 

DeAndrea Benjamin, concur. 

8

 We also granted certiorari to determine whether the police violated article I, 

section 10 of the South Carolina Constitution by entering the backyard of the 

home. We need not reach this issue because we affirm the circuit court's ruling 

suppressing the evidence under the Fourth Amendment. State v. Gamble, 405 S.C. 

409, 420, 747 S.E.2d 784, 789 (2013). 

31