FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T J UNE 3, 2 011 J OHN LEY CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 14 53 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 00 83 5- CV-T-2 6- TBM JOHN COFF IN, CYNTHIA COFFIN, Pl ai nt iff s- App el lant s, ve rs us STACY BRANDAU, in di vi du al ly, f.k.a . Sta cy

Ferri s, JAM ES LUTZ, in di vi du al ly, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ju ne 3, 2 01 1) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON, CARNES, BARKETT, HULL, MARC US, W ILSON, PRYOR, MARTIN, ANDERSON, an d B LACK.ANDERSON, Circ ui t J ud ge :

Inth is cas e, Cynt hi a Co ffi n a tt em pt edto sh uthe r op enga rag e d oo r to pr ev en t two Sa ras ot a Co un ty Sheri ff’s d ep ut ie s, J am es Lut z an d S ta cy Bran dau, fro m servi ng a co urt o rd er o n h er h us ba nd , Jo hn Co ffi n. As Ms . Cof fin att em pt ed 1 to clo se th e o pe n g arag e d oo r, Bran dau s te pp edin to th e th res ho ld , bre ak in g t he el ect ro ni c-eye safe ty beam on th e g arag e d oo r an d c au si ng th e d oo r to retreatto it s op enpo si ti on . The Dep ut ie s, wh o d idno t p os se ss eit he r a s earc h warran t o r an arre stwarran t, en te redth e Co ffi ns ’ at ta ch edop enga rag e an d a rres te d M s. Co ffi n fo r ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce. The Co ffi ns th enso ug htda m ag es ag ai ns t Lu tz an d Bran dau u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 on th e g ro un ds th atth e Dep ut ie s’ warran tl es s en try int o t he ir g arag e an d M s. Co ffi n’s arres t v io la te d t he ir F ou rth Am en dm en t rig ht s. The Depu ti es arg ue d t ha t qua li fie d i m m un it y sh ie ld edth em

fro m li ab il it y . Res pe ct in g t he on ly two cl ai m s b efo re the co urt— Ms . Cof fin ’s cha ll en ge to he r arre stan d b ot h P la in ti ffs ’ ch al le ng e to th e Dep ut ie s’ ent ry in to th e g arag e—t he di st ric t co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t t o t he Depu ti es . The d is tri ctco urt
For convenie nce, w e sometimes re fer to Lutz and Bra

ndau collec tively , as “the 1 Deputies.” 2co nc lu de d t ha t, al th ou gh th e Dep ut ie s v io la te d t he Co ffi ns ’ Fo urth Am en dm en t

rig ht s b y en te rin g t he ga rag e, th atrig htwas n otcle arl y est ab li sh ed . Andbe cau se th ere was at l eas t ar gu ab le pro babl e cau se to arre stMs . Cof fin forob st ru ct in g se rv ic e o f le ga l p ro ces s, t he Depu ti es were en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y onbo th Ms . Cof fin s’ arres t cl ai m

an d o n t he Pla in ti ffs ’ ch al le ng e to th e en try int o t he ga rag e. On i ni ti al ap pe al , we affi rm ed . Cof fin v. Br an dau, 6 09 F.3d12 04 (11 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Thi s co urt t he n v acat edth atde ci si on an d g ran te d re he ari ng enba nc to ad dr es s wh ethe r th e warra nt le ss sei zu re o f Ms . Cof fin in si de he r ga rag e b y Dep ut ie s B ran dau a ndLut z v io la te d t he Co ffi ns ’ Fo urth Am en dm en t ri gh ts an d, i f
so , whet he r th os e ri gh ts were cl earl y est ab li sh edwhen th is in ci de ntoc curred , su ch th atth e Dep ut ie s s ho ul d b e st rip pe d o f qu al ifi edimm un it y . Cof

fin v. Br an dau, 6 14 F.3 d 1 24 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) . W e h ol d t ha t al th ou gh th e Dep ut ie s’ ent ran ce i nt o t he ga rag e d idvi ol at e th e Co ffi ns ’ Fo urth Am en dm en t ri gh ts , th e b ou nd ari es of t he rig htvi ol at edhe re were no t cl earl y est ab li sh edan d, t hu s, t he Depu ti es are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi edimm

un it y . Accor di ng ly, th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly gran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of

th e Dep ut ie s b ot h o n M s. Co ffi n’s arres t cl ai m an d o n the Pl ai nt iff s’ cha ll en ge to th e en tra nc e o f th e g arag e. I. Fact s 3Dep ut y Lut z arr iv edat t he Co ffi ns ’ ho m e o n Ap ril 18 , 20 06 , sh ortl y be fo re 6: 30 PM, dur in g d ay li gh t h ou rs . Lutz was t he re t o s erv e Mr. Co ffi n wi th anOrde r of Tem po rary Injun ct io n Ag ai ns t Re pe atVio le nc e, whi ch Mr. Co ffi n’s t en an t h ad ob ta in edsi x d ay s ea rli er fro m th e Ci rcu itCo urt fo r Ch arl ot te Co un ty, Fl or id a. 2 The in jun ct io n re qu ire d M r. Co ffi n t o s urren de r an y fir earm s o r amm

un it io n i n h is po ss es si on to th e Sar as ot a Co un ty Sheri ff an d o rd ered“ [t]he Sh eri ff o f Sara so ta Co un ty, oran y

ot he r au th or iz edlaw en fo rcem en t o ffi cer . . . to serve th is tem po rary in jun ct io n upo n R es po nd en t as so on as p os si bl e aft er i ts is su an ce.” The Co ffi ns ’ ho m e fac es th e st reetan d i s i n c lo se pro xi m it y to th e si de walk
. The att ach edgarag e al so face s t he st reetan d was ful ly ope n a t t he ti m e Dep ut y Lut z arr iv ed , exp os in g i ts in te rio r. The d riv eway le ad s d ire ct ly from th e st reetto th e g arag e, an d apa th way ve ers lef t fr om th e driv eway up to th e fro ntdo or . Bet ween th e fro ntdo oran d t he ga rag e, th e h ou se ha s a l arg e fro ntba y win do w whi chha d i ts cu rta in s drawnop enat t he ti m e Lut z arr iv ed
. Upo n h is arri va l, Lu tz ap pr oa ch edth e Co ffi ns ’ fro ntdo oran d ra ng th e b el l. Cynt hi a Co ffi n a ns weredth e d oo r an d Lu tz ex pl ai ne d t ha t h e h adpape rs to de li ve r The injunction had be en issued by the Circuit Court of Charlotte County , pursuant to 2 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 784.046 ( West 2011). Section 784.046 allows a petitioner to obtain an “injunction for pr otection in case s of re peat violenc e” a fter “ two incidents of violence or stalking [are] committ ed by

the re spondent, one of which must have be en within 6 months of filing of the petition, which are direc ted ag ainst the petitioner or [an] imm ediate f amily member. F la. Stat. Ann. § 784.046(1)(b), (2)
. 4to Mr. Co ffi n. Ms. Co ffi n re sp on de d t ha t M r. Co ffi n was in th e b athr oo m an d 3 Lut z wou ldha ve to wait . She t he n s hu t an d l oc ke d t he fro ntdo or . After wa it in g a few m in ut es , Lut z wal ke d b ackdo wn t he pa th way faci ng th e fro ntba y

win do w an d, b el ie vi ng he ha d m ad e eye con ta ctwith M s. Co ffi n t hr ou gh th e win do w, wav edth e p ap erwo rkab ov e h is he adas arem in de r th athe was wai ti ng . Und er the im pr es si on th atMs . Cof

fin ha d s een hi m , Lut z wal ke d b ackup to th e fro ntdo or ex pe ct in g h er t o o pe n i t an d g iv e h im anup da te . As he ap pr oa ch edth e fro ntdo or , he ov erh earda m an ’s vo ic e as ki ng , “ Wha t d idhe want ? ” Lut z th eneit he r ran g t he be ll or kno ck edonth e fro ntdo orfora se co ndti m e b utrece iv edno an swe r. He th enwalk edup to th e fro ntwin do w to try to g etth e Co ffi ns ’ at te nt io n. Ms . Cof fin , up se t tha t Lu tz was wal ki ng th ro ug h h er b us he s, b eg ansh ou ti ng forhi m to ge t o ut of he r bu sh es an d o ff h er p ro pe rty andth reat en edto cal l t he po li ce. Lut z b ack edup fro m th e win do w andwalk edov er t o h is pa tro l ca r, pa rk edonth e st reetat t he dr iv eway, in ord er t o c al l fo r ba ckup be cau se he fel t t he Co ffi ns were try in g t o av oi d s erv ic e an d t he re was a po ss ib il it y of o bs tru ct io n. Abo utfiv e to eig htm in ut es aft er ca ll in g fo r ba ckup , Depu ty Brand auarri ve d atth e sc en e. Arou ndth e ti m e o f Bra nd au ’s arri va l, Lu tz saw am anth athe

It is undisput ed that L

utz di d not know that the woman who ope ned the door was Ms. 3 Coffin at the moment she ope ned the door but that events followingthis made her ide ntity clea r to him. 5as su m edwas M r. Co ffi n t hr ou gh th e fro ntwin do w. Bran dau was on th e p ho ne 4 wit h h er s up erv is orwhi le Lut z was ap pr is in g h er o f th e si tu at io n a t t he Co ffi n ho us e. Acco rd in g t o Lu tz , th e Dep ut ie s wer e st an di ng in fro ntof t he op enga rag e do orwhi le Bran dau was tal ki ng on th e p ho ne with asupe rv is or ab ou t wh atto do
ne xtwhen th ey

he ardth e in te rio r ga rag e d oo r op enan d c lo se an d t he rol li ng ga rag e do orst artto clo se . Bran dau i nt errupt edth e p ho ne cal l, an d wal ke d i nt o t he op en ga rag e, tr ip pi ng th e el ectro ni c se ns or an d c au si ng th e g arag e d oo r to retreatto it s op enpo si ti on . Lutz fol lo wed , andsaw B ran dau g o a ndkn oc k o n the in te rio r do or fro m th e g arag e to th e k it ch en , wher eupo n M s. Co ffi n c am e o utin to th e g arag e an d y el le d a t b ot h Dep ut ie s t o g etoff he r pr op ert y . Bran dau a nn ou nc edto Ms . Cof fin
anin te nt io n t o a rres t h er fo r ob st ru ct in g s erv ic e o f pr oc es s. Acco rd in g t o M s. Co ffi n, s he op en edth e d oo r fro m th e k it ch ento th e g arag e, reac he d o utan d p us he d t he au to m at ic bu tt on to clo se th e g arag e d oo r, atwhi ch ti m e sh e sa w Bran dau fo ll owe d b y Lut z wal k i nt o t he ga rag e an d trip th e el ect ro ni c se ns orcau si ng th e g arag e d oo r to return t o i ts op enpo si ti on . She th enwalk edin to

The pa perw ork to be ser

ved conta ined a de scription of Mr. Coffin that the ma n inside 4 appea red to fit. 6th e g arag e to tal k wi thBran dau, fe el in g m or e co m fo rtabl e ta lk in g t o afem al e. 5

The pa rti es ag ree t ha t t he Depu ti es att em pt edto arre stMs . Cof

fin for ob st ru ct io n o f se rv ic e o f pr oc es s an d t ha t a s tru gg le en su edas the Depu ti es at te m pt edto ha nd cu ff Ms . Cof fin . The s tru gg le be gan b etween th e Dep ut ie s an d Ms . Cof fin in th e g arag e, an d wh enMr. Co ffi n i nt erv en edin cl ud edbo th Depu ti es an d b ot h C of

fin s an d e xp an de d fr om

th e g arag e to th e h ou se . Add it io na l d ep ut ie s 6 arri ve d a ndbo th Mr. an d M s. Co ffi n wer e u lt im at el y arre st ed
. 7 To the extent the versions in the pre cedingtwo para g raphs diff er, the differ ence s are not 5 materia l. The Coffins pre sent only two claims on appe al, and the de tails of the strug g le ar e not 6 rele vant to either c laim. It is clear that appellants’ only challeng es on this appea l are : 1) whethe r the Deputies’ initial entry into the open g ara g e as the door wa s shutting violated appe llants’ Four th Amendment rights; and 2) whethe r the a rre st of Ms. Coffin violated her F ourth Amendment rights. Bec ause the Four th Amendment conse quence s of the De puties’ entry into the open g ara g e depe nd upon Plaintiffs’ expectation of privac y , the fa cts of the subseque nt strug g le in the g ara g e and houseare not releva nt. Sim ilarly

the Four th Amendment conseque nces of

the ar rest depe nd upon probable cause , arguable pr obable c ause, a nd/or the fr

uit of any illega l entry

into the ga

rag e. Ag ain the deta ils of the subsequent strug g le ar e not re levant. Thus, the dissent’s extensive rec itation of appellants’ ve rsion of the strug g le in the g ara g e and in the house is not rele vant to the leg al issues on appe al. See B arke tt, J ., concur ringin part and dissenting in par

t, infra at 3–5 (here inafter “DissentingOp.”)
. I f the De puties here wer e bad, a s the Plaintiffs’ version of the fac ts of the strug g le sug g est, those bad, but irre levant, fa cts should not lead us to an inac curate application of prec edent. Ms. Coffin was cha

rg ed with the misdemea

nor of obstruc tion of justice without violence 7 under F la. Stat. Ann. § 843.02. Mr. Coffin wa s char g ed with seve ral fe lonies: two counts of battery on a law e nforc ement off icer under F la. Stat. Ann. § 784.07(2)(b) and § 784.03( 1); resistingan off

icer with violence unde r F la. Stat. Ann. § 843.01; two counts of use of a wea pon on a law e nforc ement off icer under F la. Stat. Ann. § 790.054; and depr iving a n office r of mea

ns of protec tion or communication under F la. Stat. Ann. § 843.025. Be cause the Deputies la cked a war rant for Mr. Coffin’s a

rre st, these cha

rg es, with the exception of the § 843.025 c harg e, we re 7W e are no lo ng er re qu ire d t o fo ll ow t he two -s te p p ro ces s o nc e m an da te d b y

Sau ci er v . Katz, 5 33 U.S. 19 4, 1 21 S. Ct. 2 15 1 (2 00 1) . Thu s, we ar e fre e to ad dr es s th e que st io n o f whe th er the fact s t ha t t he pl ai nt iff all eg edsh owe d avi ol at io n o f a
co ns ti tu ti on al rig htor t he qu es ti on of wh ethe r th e ri gh t atis su e was cle arl y es tabl is he d i n t he ord er m os t ap pr op ria te forth e cas e atha nd
. As n ot ed , th e Co ffi ns pre se nton ly two cl ai m s. Bo th Co ffi ns ch al le ng e th e Dep ut ie s’ entry

in to th e g arag e; on ly Ms. Co ffi n c ha ll en ge s h er arres t. W e ad dr es s 8 fir stMs . Cof

fin ’s cla im

foranun la wfu l arres t. The n we a dd res s wh ethe r th e en try in to th e g arag e v io la te d t he Co ffi n’s Fo urthAm en dm en t ri gh ts . Becau se we co nc lu de th atth e en try didvi ol at e Fo urth Am en dm en t ri gh ts , we add res s fi na ll y whe th er the re was a vi ol at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edFo urth Am en dm en t l aw. II. Ms . Cof

fin ’s Cla im

forUnl awfu l Arre st Dep ut ie s ar e en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y on cla im s o f fal se arre stso lo ng as th ey ha d p ro babl e cau se or a rg uabl e p ro babl e cau se forth e arr es t. See Lee v . Ferr aro , 28 4 F .3d11 88 , 11 95 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). W e eas il y co nc lu de th atth e Dep ut ie s h adam

pl e p ro babl e cau se to arres t M s. Co ffi n fo r m is de m ean or dropped. O n Marc h 13, 2007, Mr. Coffin pled no c ontest to that charg e and w as sentenc ed to six day s’ conf

inement. Mea

nwhile, the § 843.02 cha

rg e ag ainst Ms. Coffin was dismissed. The Coffins do not cha lleng e the a rre st of Mr. Coffin, and do not c halleng e the 8 Deputies’ e ntry

into the home itself. 8ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce. At t he ve ry lea st , th ey

ha d a rg uabl e p ro babl e cau se for
arre st , whi ch is all th atis requi redforqu al ifi edimm un it y pu rp os es . Id. at11 95
. The di ffi cu lt y

with t he arre stin th is cas e tu rn s n oton th e p ro babl e cau se qu es ti on , bu t o n t he qu es ti on of wh ethe r th e o ffi cers were en ti tl edto en te r th e g arag e in ord er to m ak e th atwarran tl es s arres t. See Mi nn es ot a v . Ols on , 49 5 U.S. 9 1, 9 5, 1 10 S. Ct . 16 84 , 16 87 (19 90 ) (“ It wa s h el d i n P ayto n v . New Yorkth ata su sp ectsh ou ld
no t b e arr es te d i n h is ho us e wit ho utanarre stwarran t, ev enth ou gh th ere i s pr ob ab le cau se to arre sthi m .”) (ci ta ti on om it te d) ; Un it edSta te s v . Edm on ds on , 79 1 F.2 d 1 51 2, 1 51 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 6) (“ A fin di ng of p ro babl e cau se alo ne . . . do es no t jus ti fy a warra nt le ss arre stat asu sp ect ’s ho m e.”). Fo r th e rea so ns di sc us se d b el ow, we ho ldth atitwas n otcle arl y est ab li sh edth atth e g arag e en try here wou ldvi ol at e th e Fo urthAm en dm en t, an d b ecau se th e Dep ut ie s h adpro babl e cau se to arre stMs . Co ffi n fo r ob st ru ct io n, t he y are en ti tl edto qu al ifi edim m un it y on th is cla im
. Pro babl e cau se to arre stex is ts un de r bo th fed eral an d F lo rid a la w when an arre stis “ ob

jecti ve ly reaso nabl e b as edon th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces .” Lee, 28 4 F .3dat 1 19 5. “ Thi s s ta nd ardis m etwhen th e fac ts an d c irc um st an ces withi n th e o ffi cer’s kno wled ge , of wh ic h h e o r sh e h as reas on ab ly trus two rth y in fo rm at io n, wo ul d c au se a pr ud en t p ers onto be li ev e, un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces sh own , th atth e su sp ectha s co m m it te d, i s co m

m it ti ng , or i s ab ou t t o c omm itan 9of

fen se .” Id . (cit at io ns an d quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . Prob ab le cau se requi res m or e th ana m ere s us pi ci on , bu t n otth e le ve l o f co nv in ci ng pro of ne ces sa ry

to supp ort a co nv ic ti on . Id. Arg uabl e p ro babl e cau se ex is ts wher e rea so nabl e o ffi cers in th e sa m e ci rcu m st an ces an d wi th th e sa m e kno wled ge as the de fen da ntco ul d h av e be li ev edth atpro babl e cau se ex is te d. Id
. Fl or id a p ro vi de s fo r se rv ic e o f pr oc es s t o b e m ad e o nl y on th e p ers on to be
se rv ed , th ei r sp ou se , or ape rs on ab ov e th e ag e o f fi fte enli vi ng with re sp on de nt . 9 Fl or id a st atut ory

law p ro vi de s n o o th er m etho ds forservi ng anin di vi du al ; u nl ik e so m e st at es , Flo rid a st atut es do no t p ro vi de forpro pe r se rv ic e o f pr oc es s t o b e m ad e b y affi xi ng a co py to t he do orof t he res id en ce an d fo ll owi ng up with a
m ai le d c op y . Com

pa re Fl a. St at . Ann . § 4 8.0 31 (W es t 2 01 1) with N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3 08 (McKi nn ey

20 10 ) (p ro vi di ng for“ na il an d m ai l” servi ce an d fo r se rv ic e “ in
su ch m an ne r as th e co urt, upo n m ot io n wi th ou t n ot ic e, di rect s, i f se rv ic e is im pr act ic ab le un de r parag rap hs on e, two an d fo urof t hi s s ect io n” ). Und er Fl or id a la w, a per so n h as th e le ga l o bl ig at io n t o a ccep t s erv ic e o f pr oc es s wh enservi ce i s at te m pt edreas on ab ly. See Han ey v. Ol in Co rp ., 24 5 S o. 2 d Fla. Stat. Ann. § 48.031( 1)(a ) provides that “[s] ervic e of origina l proce ss is made by 9 deliveringa copy

of it to the person to be se rved . . . or by leavingthe copies at his or her usual place of abode with any

person r esidingthere in who is 15 y ear s of ag e or olde r and infor ming the person of their conte nts.” Fla . Stat. Ann. § 48.031(2)(a ) then provide s that “[s] ubstitut e ser vice may be made on the spouse of the person to be se rved . . . , if the cause of ac tion is notan adver sary proce edingbetwee n the spouse and the person to be se rved.” 1067 1, 6 73 (Fl a. 4th DCA 1 97 1) (“ An o ffi cer’s re as on ab le att em ptto effe ctpe rs on al
se rv ic e o f pr oc es s upo n ape rs on in hi s o wn h om e, whe n t he pe rs on reas on ab ly sh ou ldkn ow t he off

ic er’s i de nt it y

an d p ur po se , can no t b e fru st rat edby the si m pl e ex pe di en t o f th e p ers onclo si ng th e fro ntdo orin th e o ffi cer’s fa ce an d wi lfu ll y refu si ng to acce ptservi ce o f pr oc es s.”) . Whi le th ere a re s om e Fl or id a cas es th at ha ve in di cat edth atco urts wil l ac cep t l es s t ha n p ers on al servi ce i n t he ev en t t ha t pe op le att em

ptto av oi d s erv ic e, th e law inth is areais qu it e sp ars e an d c ert ai nl y co ul d n otcle arl y

est ab li sh un de r wha t ci rcu m st an ces a le ss er m etho d o f se rv ic e is
acce pt ab le . See, e.g ., Haney, 245 So . 2dat 6 72 –7 4 (h ol di ng th at , wher e d ep ut y sh eri ff o bs erv edhu sb an d s ta nd in g i n d oo rway an d wi fe fl edba ckto th e h om e’s fro ntdo ory el li ng “ no ” an d c lo se d t he do oraft er s he rif f id en ti fie d h im se lf a s pr es en t t o s erv e p ro ces s, d ep ut y sh eri ff’s act io ns of i de nt ifyin g h im se lf i n alo ud
vo ic e, an no un ci ng he ha d c op ie s o f su m m on s, re ad in g t he m

lo ud ly out si de th e do or , andan no un ci ng he was l eav in g t he m on th e d oo rs te p was su ffi ci en t d el iv ery of pape rs to effe ctva li d s erv ic e o f pr oc es s) ; Li be rm anv. Co m m erci al Nat’l Bankof Bro wardCn ty., 25 6 S o. 2 d 6 3, 6 3– 64 (Fl a. 4t h DCA 1 97 1) (ho ld in g t ha t p ers on al
se rv ic e was pe rfec te d o n d efen da ntwher e d ep ut y sh eri ff o bs erv edth e d efen da nt ret rie ve pape rs lef

t i n h is m ai l b ox aft er at te m pt in g t o a vo idservi ce b y

run ni ng away fro m

pro ces s s erv er i nt o h is ho m e b utno ti ng th at“ th is ap pr oa ch es ou te r 11li m it s” ).

Lut z, a fu ll y

un ifo rm edSara so taSh eri ff’s d ep ut y arri ve d a t t he Co ffi ns ’ ho us e with ava li dl y

ex ecu te d re st rai ni ng ord er an d t em po rary inju nc ti onag ai ns t rep eatvi ol en ce, wh ic h u nd er Fl or id a la w is so m ewh atdi ffer en t fr om anord in ary su m m on s an d c om

pl ai nt . He tes ti fie d i n h is de po si ti onth atres tra in in g o rd ers m us t be serve d o n t he pe rs on na m edth erei n a ndth athe ha d n ev er s im pl y lef t a res tra in in g o rd er ata res id en ce o r pe rfo rm edsubs ti tu te servi ce o n adi ffer en t pe rs on pre se ntat the res id en ce. The no ti on th atservi ng a res tra in in g o rd er s ho ul d b e tr eat eddi ffer en tl y th an se rv in g o rd in ary pr oc es s fi nd s s om e supp ort b ot h i n F lo rid a’s pr oc edur al rul es an d in th e la ng ua ge us edinSect io n 7 84 .04 6. With reg ardto res tra in in g o rd ers in act io ns by vic ti m s o f rep eatvi ol en ce, the rel ev an t Fl or id a p ro cedur al rul es pro vi de th atth ere m

us t b e p ers on al servi ce an d t ha t s erv ic e can be m ad e o nl y by a law
en fo rcem en t o ffi cer. Se e Fl a. R. Fam . Law R. Proc . 12 .61 0( b) (2 )(B) (wit h re sp ect to a pe ti ti on forrep eatvi ol en ce “ [p ]erso na l s erv ic e b y a la w enf or cem en t ag en cy

is requi red ”); see als o F la . R. Fam . Law. R. Proc . 12 .16 0( c)(3 )(A) (“ A tem po rary in jun ct io n fo r pr ot ect io n a ga in st. . . rep eatvi ol en ce . . . mus t b e p er so na ll y se rv ed .”) (em

ph as is ad de d) . By

co nt ras t, s erv ic e o f ot he r do cu m en ts ne edno t b e se rv edby a law en fo rcem en t o ffi cer. Se e Fl a. St at . Ann . § 4 8.0 21 (ou tl in in g t he 12ge ne ral gu id el in es forwho m ay serve pro ces s)
. Sect io n 7 84 .04 6 a ls o p ro vi de s, 1 0 wit h re sp ectto res tra in in g o rd ers co nc ern in g re pe atvi ol en ce, tha t af te r th e cl erkof
co urt fu rn is he s a c op y

of t he do cu m en ts to a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer, t he off

ic er “s ha ll ser ve i t u po n the res

po nden t a s s oo n the re af

te r a s p os si bl e o n a ny da

y o f the
wee k a nd at an y ti me of th e d ay or ni gh t.”Fla . Sta t. An n. § 78 4.0 46 (8 )(a) (1 ) (em ph as is ad de d) . The few Fl or id a cas es th atall owe d fo r so m e al te rn at iv e fo rm of
se rv ic e in vo lv edde li ve ry of ast an da rdsu m

m on s an d c om

pl ai nt , andno t a r ep eat vi ol en ce p et it io n a ndres tra in in g o rd er tha t re qu ire d t he sec ur in g o f fi rearm s. 1 1 InLut z’s fi rs t i nt erac ti on with M s. Co ffi n, atth e fro ntdo orof t he Co ffi n ho m e, Lut z cl earl y

st at edhi s l eg it im at e rea so n fo r be in g o n the ir p ro pe rty – to se rv e Mr. Co ffi n wi th th is res tra in in g o rd er. At tha t t im e, Ms . Cof fin Also by contra st, Florida statutes a llow for substitute service of other ty pes of 1 0 documents. See F la. Stat. Ann. § 48.031 (outlining g ener al guidelines for howto serve pr ocess)
. It is not clear that substitute service is sufficient for proper service of a r estrainingorder in an action by a victim of repeat violenc e. The dissent states that ther e is no support in the Florida law that a r estrainingorder for 1 1 repe at violence is treated dif fer ently from a sta

ndard summons and c omplaint and cites two decisions of a

n intermediate court of a

ppeal f or the notion that g ener al servic e-of -proc ess law applies to servic e of a

temporar y restra ining or der. See Dissenting O p. at 3. The c ases c ited did not involve a re strainingorder for r epea t violence. See Top Dollar Pawn T oo, Inc. v. King , 861 So. 2d 1264, 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) ; Palamara v. World Cl ass Yac hts, Inc., 824 So. 2d 194, 195 (F la. 4th DCA 2002) (pe r curiam). The dissent both overlooks clear languag e of the Florida proce dural rule s (indicatingthat repe at violence petitions mustbe per sonally serve d by

a law enfor ceme nt office r) a

nd fails to rec og nize that, as decisions of an inter mediate state court, the case s it cites—which incidentally are not on point—could not clearly establish that the g ener al service of proc ess law a

pplies to service of a r estrainingorder ag ainst repe at violence in any event. 13un equi vo cal ly ind ic at edth atMr. Co ffi n was ho m e b utth atLut z wou ldha ve to

wait . After wa it in g afew m in ut es , with n o c on ta ctfro m eithe r of th e Co ffi ns , Lut z tri edto ge t M s. Co ffi n’s at te nt io n t hr ou gh th e fro ntwin do w, ass um in g t hi s wo ul d pr om pthe r to off

er an up da te . Ms. Co ffi n, awa re tha t Lu tz ha d p ap erwo rkth athe ha d d es cri be d a s i m

po rtant , th enbe ga n yell in g a t Lu tz th ro ug h t he fro ntwin do w to ge t o utof h er b us he s an d o ff h er p ro pe rty. Andhe r at te m ptto clo se th e g arag e do orap pe aredto th e Dep ut ie s as a fu rth er ef fo rt t o a vo idservi ce. It r eas on ab ly app eare d t o t he Depu ti es th atMs . Cof fin tri edto th wartth e Dep ut ie s’ abi li ty to s erv e p ro ces s o n M r. Co ffi n, an d, t hu s, t he y ha d p ro babl e cau se to arre sthe r fo r ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce, s et ti ng asi de forth e m om en t an y Fo urth Am en dm en t i m

pl ic at io ns ari si ng fro m

th e Dep ut ie s’ ent ry

in to th e g arag e, as no te d in th e n ex t p arag rap h. Obs tru ct io n o f se rv ic e o f pr oc es s i s a m is de m ean or 1 2 of fen se . Fla. St at . Ann . § 8 43 .02
. The o bs tru ct io n o ccu rredinth e p res en ce o f th e 1 3
The dissent prope rly

points out that the occ upants of a house are fre e to deny an 1 2 office r’s re quest to enter the ir home, and a re f reeto talk to the office rs through a close d door. Dissenting O p. at 2 n.2 (c iting Ke ntucky v. King , 536 U.S. ___, slip op. at 16 (May 16, 2011); United States v. Tobin, 923 F.2d 1506, 1512 ( 11th Cir. 1991) (en ba nc)) . Howeve r, the dissent overlooks the f

act that the D eputies her e did not enter the home; ra

ther, they enter ed an ope n g ara g e to ac cess a

nd knock on the visible door to the kitche n. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 843.02 pr ovides: “Whoever sha ll resist, obstruct, or oppose a ny office r 1 3 . . . personne l or repr esentative of the De partment of L aw Enf orce ment; or other pe rson leg ally authorized to execute proc ess in the execution of leg al proc ess or in the law ful execution of any leg al duty , without offer ing or doing violenc e to the per son of the off icer , shall be guilty

of a misdemeanor of

the first degree , punishable as pr ovided in 775.082 or 775.083.” 14of

fic ers , andth ey

were thu s au th or iz edto m ak e an arre stwitho uta warra nt , imm ed ia te ly or in fres h p ur su it . Fla. St at . Ann . § 9 01 .15 & (1 ) (“ A law
en fo rcem en t o ffi cer m ay

arre sta pe rs on witho uta warra ntwhen [t]he pe rs on ha s co m m it te d afel on y

or m is de m ean oror v io la te d am un ic ip al or c ou nt y

ord in an ce i n th e p res en ce o f th e o ffi cer. Anarre stforth e co m m is si on of am is de m ean oror t he vi ol at io n o f a m

un ic ip al or c ou nt y

ord in an ce s ha ll be m ad e imm ed ia te ly or infres h pu rs ui t.”)
. Fo r th e rea so ns di sc us se d b el ow i n P artIV of t hi s o pi ni on , alt ho ug h t he Dep ut ie s’ entry

in to th e Co ffi ns ’ ga rag e v io la te d t he ir F ou rth Am en dm en t ri gh ts , th ere was no t a v io la ti on of c le arl y est ab li sh edlaw. Th us , th e Dep ut ie s ar e en ti tl ed to qu al ifi edimm

un it y with re sp ectto th e en try andth e en try do es no t d ep riv e th e Dep ut ie s o f qu al ifi edimm un ity forth e o th erwi se lawf

ul arre stof M s. Co ffi n. III. En try of the Garag e; th e Fo urth Am en dm en t i s Vi ol at ed The Fo urth Am en dm en t p ro te ct s “ [t]he rig htof t he pe op le to be sec ur e in th ei r pe rs on s, h ou se s, p ap ers , andeffe ct s, ag ai ns t u nr eas on ab le sea rch es an d
se iz ur es .” U.S. Con st . am en d. IV. “ [P]hy si cal en try of the ho m e is th e ch ie f ev il ag ai ns t wh ic h t he word in g o f th e Fo urth Am en dm en t i s d ire ct ed .” Payto n v . New York, 4 45 U.S. 57 3, 5 85 , 10 0 S . Ct. 1 37 1, 1 37 9– 80 (19 80 ) (ci ta ti onan d quo ta ti on s om it te d) ; Ri gg s v . Sta te , 91 8 S o. 2 d 2 74 , 27 7 (F la . 20 05 ) (quo ti ng Payto n) . Never 15is th e Fo urthAm en dm en t “ zo ne of p riv acy m or e cl earl y de fin edth anwhen bo un de d b y

th e u na m bi gu ou s p hysic al di m en si on s o f anin di vi du al ’s ho m e.” Payton , 44 5 U.S. at58 9, 1 00 S. Ct. at13 81 –8 2. The Co ffi ns arg ue d b ot h i n t he di stric t co urt an d o n app eal th atth ei r op en ad jacen t g arag e was pa rt o f “ th e u na m bi gu ou s p hysic al di m en si on s” of t he ir h om e an d, t he refo re, was en ti tl edto th e ab so lu te pro te ct io n o f a h om e u nd er Pa yto n. Th e di ffi cu lt y with t hi s ar gu m en t i s t ha t, wh il e th e g arag e h ere i s at ta ch ed , is co ve redby
a co m pa ti bl e h ip roo f, an d d oe s s ha re o ne co m m on wall with t he ho us e, itis di ffer en t fr om

th e li vi ng area s o f th e h om e th atare ea si ly categ or iz edas p artof t he

“ un am bi gu ou s p hysic al di m en si on s” of t he ho m e. The g arag e h as a ve ry lar ge ex te rio r do orfaci ng th e st reetth atwas l eftful ly rais ed , th us ex po si ng th e in te rio r to an y ne ig hb or s o r pa ss ers by. The garag e was no t o pe n o nl y m om en ta ril y

in ord er fo r a carto en te r; i t was op enfro m be fo re the Depu ti es arri ve d u nt il th e m om en t Ms . Cof fin att em pt edto clo se it . In co nt ras t wi th th e ab un da nc e o f cas e law rei te rat in g t he hi gh lev el of F ou rth Am en dm en t p ro te ct io n a ffo rd eda ho m e, cas e la w add res si ng th e Fo urthAm en dm en t s ta tu s o f anatt ach edbu t o pe n g arag e is qu it e sp ars e, no t o nl y

in Flo rid a b utth ro ug ho utth e co un try. The Co ffi ns rel y

pri m ari ly on P ayto n, i ts pre de ces so rs , andpro ge ny for the ir arg um en t t ha t the Depu ti es vi ol at edth e Fo urth Am en dm en t wh enth ey en te redth e 16ga rag e. The c as es th ey cit e, fo r ex am

pl e, Kirkv. Lo ui si an a, 53 6 U.S. 6 35 , 12 2 S
. Ct . 24 58 (20 02 ), Oli ve r v. Un it edSta te s, 4 66 U.S. 17 0, 1 04 S. Ct. 1 73 5 (1 98 4) , and Si lv erm anv. Un it edSta te s, 3 65 U.S. 50 5, 8 1 S . Ct. 6 79 (19 61 ), al l re it erat e th e pr in ci pl e th atho m es are en ti tl edto th e g reat es t Fo urth Am en dm en t p ro te ct io n. Se e Kirk , 53 6 U.S. at63 8, 1 22 S. Ct. at24 59 (“ As Payto n m ak es pl ai n, p ol ic e o ffi cers ne edeithe r a warra ntor p ro babl e cau se pl us ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces in ord er t o m ak e a l awfu l en try int o aho m e.”); Oli ve r, 46 6 U.S. at17 8, 1 04 S. Ct. at17 41 (“ [T]he Co urt s in ce t he en act m en t o f th e Fo urth Am en dm en t h as st res se d t he
ov erri di ng res pe ctforth e sanc ti ty of th e h om e th atha s b eenem be dd edin ou r tra di ti on s s in ce t he ori gi ns of t he Rep ub li c.”) (c it at io n a ndqu ot at io ns om it te d) ; Si lv erm an , 36 5 U.S. at51 1, 8 1 S . Ct. at68 3 (“ At the ve ry co re [o f th e Fo urth Am en dm en t] st an ds th e ri gh t o f a m anto retreatin to hi s o wn h om e an d t he re b e free fro m un reas on ab le go ve rn m en ta l i nt ru si on .”). Thes e cas es , ho wev er, d o n ot ad dr es s t he cru ci al qu es ti on in th is cas e, whi ch is whet he r anop enatt ach edga rag e is en ti tl edto th e sa m e le ve l o f pr ot ect io n. Des pi te th e d is se nt ’s rep eat edin si st en ce, Payton si m

pl y di d n otin vo lv e a g arag e atall . Thu s, Pa yto n m ad e n o h ol di ng with
res pe ctto whet he r anatt ach edop enga rag e is part o f th e h om e. Bo th th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt an d o urCo urt h av e, in so m e ci rcu m st an ces , ext en de d F ou rth Am en dm en t p ro te ct io n t o g arag es , see Tay lo r v. 17Uni te d S ta te s, 2 86 U.S. 1, 5 2 S . Ct. 4 66 (19 32 ); Un it edSta te s v . Sok ol ow, 4 50

F.2 d 3 24 (5t h C ir. 1 97 1) (pe r cu ria m); Kauz v. Un it edSta te s, 9 5 F .2d47 3 (5 th Cir
. 19 38 ). Howev er, the se cas es are d is ti ng ui sh ab le fro m th e in st an t ca se an d, th eref or e, do no t co nt ro l o urou tc om e to da y . InTay lo r v. Un it edSta te s, t he Supr em e Co urt h el d tha t wh is ke y reco ve red by offi cers fro m

a cl os edan d l oc ke d g arag e sh ou ldha ve be ensupp res se d a s t he pr oduc t o f anun reas on ab le sea rch . 28 6 U.S. at5– 6, 5 2 S . Ct. at46 7. Th e o ffi cers , aft er s m el li ng whi sky

em an at in g fr om

th e g arag e an d s eei ng a nu m be r of cardbo ard bo xe s tha t ap pe aredto co nt ai n jars of l iquo r by peer in g t hr ou gh a sm al l o pe ni ng ,

“br ok e th e fas te ni ng up on a do or ,” fo rci bl y en te rin g t he on ce l oc ke d g arag e. Id . at 5, 5 2 S . Ct. at46 7. Taylor t hu s h ol ds th ata ga rag e is en ti tl edto Fo urth Am en dm en t p ro te ct io n wh enitis clo se d a ndlo ck ed , m ai nt ai ni ng th e o wne r’s
ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy, bu t s ay s n ot hi ng ab ou t an op enga rag e. Lik ewis e, So ko lo w, whi chals o e xt en de d F ou rth Am en dm en t p ro te ct io n t o a ga rag e can no t co nt ro l t he ou tc om e o f th is cas e. InSo ko lo w, a po li ce o ffi cer fo ll owe d acar s us pe ct edto co nt ai n s to le n c ig aret te s t o t he So ko lo w res id en ce whe re the car “ ba ck edup to So ko lo w’ s g arag e.” 4 50 F.2dat 3 25 . “ Whi le arre st in g th e su sp ect , th e o ffi cer s aw a num be r of airco nd it io ni ng un it s s ta ck edin th e ga rag e.” Id . The o ffi cer t he n e nt eredth e g arag e an d re co rd edser ia l n um be rs fro m 18th e ai r co nd it io ni ng un it s wi th ou t a s earc h warran t. Id . The fac ts of S ok ol ow d o

no t m ak e cl ear wh ethe r th e g arag e d oo r was op enor wh ethe r th e o ffi cer c ou ldsee in to th e cl os edga rag e th ro ug h awin do w. See id
. The factth atth e Co ffi ns ’ ga rag e was lef t o pe n fo r anin de fin it e p eri odof ti m e is a cru ci al factin th is cas e. So ko lo w, with it s cu rs ory st at em en t o f fac ts , is who ll y in su ffi ci en t t o c on tro l o uran al y si s h ere. Fu rth er, the ga rag e in So ko lo w, ev enif o pe n, d idno t h av e a v is ib le pa ss ag eway fro m th e o ut er thr es ho ldof t he ga rag e th ro ug h t o a n i nt eri oracce ss do orof t he ho m e, an d t he off ic er d idno t en te r to us e su ch a pa th way

in ord er t o kno ck

on th e in te rio r do oran d m ak e co nt actwith th e h om eo wne r, as th e Dep ut ie s d idhe re. See id
. 1 4 Fi na ll y , Kauz do es no t co nt ro l. In Kauz , two off ic ers were p atro ll in g a ne ig hb orho odan d n ot ic eda car kno wn t o b e a “ li qu orcar” in fro ntof aga rag e

“ whi ch was o pe n abo utth ree f eet .” Kauz , 95 F.2dat 4 73 –7 4. Th e o ffi cers th en wit ne ss edBu tl er, o ne co -d efen da nt , exi t t he ga rag e carry in g afiv e-g al lo n ju g i n a
Contrary to the dissent’s assumption, our opinion does not speculate a bout Sokolow. 1 4 We simpl y

point out that nowhere in Sokolow did the Court state whethe r the g ara g e wa s open or closed whe n the offic ers a rrived. L ikewise, we note that the Sokolow opinion did not i ndicate that there was a

visible passag ewa

y to an ac cess door

of the home. The Sokolow opinion i s only approximately

one pag e longin its entirety , and its descr iption of the fac ts is sparse. While it i s theore tically

possible that such passag ewa y exis ted, nothing in the opinion sug g ests that it did. Acc ording ly , it is clear that Sokolow makes no holdingwith respec t to an office r ente ringan open g ara g e with a pa ssag ewa y to knock on a visible ac cess door to the home. Thus, Sokolow cannot c ontrol this case. 19sa ckan d p utitin to th e caralo ng si de two ot he r id en ti cal jug s. Id . at 4 74 . But le r

sa w th e o ffi cers an d t rie d t o re en te r th e g arag e. One o ffi cer f ol lo wedBu tl er i nt o th e g arag e, br ou gh t h im

ba ckou ts id e, an d a rres te d h im . Som eo ne th enclo se d a nd bo lt edth e g arag e fro m

th e in si de . Fol lo win g t hi s, t he ot he r of fic er the n “ br ok e in th e [fro nt ] do or , ent eredap pe ll an t’s l iv in g qua rte rs , wentth ro ug h t he m , for cedhi s way in to th e g arag e, an d the re s aw ap pe ll an t.” Id
. The Kauz Co urt h el d t ha t t he tes ti m on y of t he off

ic ers (pl ur al ) was in ad m is si bl e, in di cat in g tha t, i n a dd it io n t o t he sec on d o ffi cer’s fo rci bl e en try int o th e h om e in vi ol at io n o f th e Fo urth Am en dm en t, the fir stoff ic er’s en try of the ga rag e was als o aFo urth Am en dm en t v io la ti on . Id. Kau z is di st in gu is habl e in
m uc h t he same way

as S ok ol ow. The re i s n o i nd ic at io n i n t he op in io n t ha t t he in te rio r do orwas v is ib le at a ll fro m th e driv eway; th e g arag e d oo r was op enon ly ab ou t thr ee fe et . Accor di ng ly, Kau z m ak es no ho ld in g wi th res pe ctto anoff ic er en te rin g a n o pe n g arag e to kn oc k o n avi si bl e acc es s d oo r to th e h om e. Furth er, whi le th e Co urt ex cl ud edth e te st im on y of b ot h o ffi cers , th e fo cu s o f th e Co urt’s rat io na le an d h ol di ng was t he sec on d o ffi cer wh o “br ok e in th e d oo r, en te red ap pe ll an t’s l iv in g qua rte rs , wentth ro ug h t he m , [an d] for cedhi s way int o t he ga rag e.” Id . (“ The re i s n o d oubtwhat ev er tha t o n t he fact s ap pe ari ng in th e rec or d th e se arch of app el lant ’s pre m is es was fo rci bl y m ad e witho uteit he r a s earc h 20warra ntor aut ho rit y an d v io la te d h er co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s u nd er the Fo urth an d Fi fth Am en dm en ts .”). Thu s, Kau z can no t co nt ro l t hi s ca se . Tay lo r, So ko lo w, andKauz est ab li sh th atFo urth Am en dm en t p ro te ct io n i s affo rd edto cert ai n g arag es un de r certa in cir cum st an ces , bu t t he y can no t an d d o n ot co nt ro l t he an swe r to th e que st io n o f whe th er thi s g arag e was en ti tl edto Fo urth Am en dm en t p ro te ct io n u nd er the cir cu m st an ces of t hi s ca se . It i s wel l-e st ab li sh edth atpo li ce o ffi cers can en te r on to res id en ti al pro pe rty, in cl ud in g p orti on s t ha t wo ul d b e co ns id eredpa rt o f th e cu rti la ge , inord er t o c arry ou t l eg it im at e p ol ic e b us in es s. 1 W ay ne R. LaFav e, Sear ch an d S ei zu re: A Treati se on th e Fo urth Am en dm en t § 2.3 (f) (4 th ed . 20 04 ) (“ Thu s, wh enth e p ol ic e co m e o n to pri va te pro pe rty to c on du ctanin ve st ig at io n o r fo r so m e o th er l eg it im at e p ur po se an d re st ric t t he ir m ov em en ts to pl aces vi si to rs co ul d b e ex pe ct edto go (e.g
. walkway s, driv eways, po rch es ), ob se rv at io ns m ad e fro m su ch va nt ag e p oi nt s ar e no t co ve redby the Fo urthAm en dm en t.”) (an d t he cas es cit edth erei n) . “ Thi s i s be cau se a po rti on of t he cu rti la ge , bei ng th e n orm al rou te of a cces s fo r an y on e vi si ti ng th e p rem is es , is on ly a sem i-p riv at e are a.” LaFav e § 2.3 (f) (quo ta ti on s om it te d)
. Incarry in g o utth ei r du ti es , th e p ol ic e are free to go wher e th e p ub li c wou ld be ex pe ct edto go . See LaFave § 2 .3(c ) (“ Thu s, co urts have he ldth atpo li ce wi th 21le gi ti m at e b us in es s m ay en te r are as of t he cu rti la ge whi ch are i m pl ie dl y op ento us e by the publ ic .”) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) ; Fl or id a v . Detl efs on , 33 5 S o. 2 d 3 71 , 37 2 (Fl a. 1s t DCA 1 97 6) (“ It c an no t b e sa id[th at ] th e d efen da ntha d areas on ab le
ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy in the fro ntpo rch of h is ho m e whe re, p res um ab ly, de li ve ry m enan d o th ers were fre e to ob se rv e th e p la nt s t he reo n.” ); Tra ch t v . Comm ’r of Pub. Sa fet y , 59 2 N.W.2d 8 63 , 86 5 (M in n. Ap p. 1 99 9) (“ Po li ce wi th leg it im at e bu si ne ss m ay

en te r th e are as of c urti la ge whi ch are i m pl ie dl y op ento us e b y

th e publ ic .”); Sta te v. Du ha rt, 8 10 So . 2d97 2, 9 73 –7 4 (F la4t h DCA 2 00 2) (ho ld in g th atth ere was no reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy in an att ach edcarp ort (i ni ti al ly refe rredto as aga rag e) wh ic h i s o pe n a ndex po se d t o the publ ic , com pa rin g t he si tu at io n t o Det le fs on ’s fro ntpo rch wher e d el iv ery m enwere fre e to go ); s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Tay lo r, 45 8 F .3d12 01 , 12 04 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (“ The Fo urth Am en dm en t, wh ic h p ro hi bi ts un reas on ab le sea rch es an d s ei zu res by the go ve rn m en t, i s n otim

pl ic at edby entry

up on pri va te lan d t o kno ckon a ci ti zen ’s do orfor leg it im at e p ol ic e p ur

po se s u nc on ne ct edwith asea rchof the pre m is es .”); id . (“ [O]ffice rs are al lo wedto kn oc k o n ares id en ce’s d oo r or ot he rwis e ap pr oa ch th e res id en ce s eek in g t o s pe akto th e in habi ta nt s ju stan[si c] any pri va te cit iz en m ay .”) (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on s o m it te d) (m is ta ke in Tay lo r). W e n eedno t d eci de in th is cas e whe th er en te rin g a n o pe n g arag e in ord er t o 22ut il iz e a p as sa ge way to ga in acce ss to a vi si bl e d oo r to th e h om e is a vi ol at io n o f th e Fo urthAm en dm en t. We ho ld , ho wev er, tha t, u nd er the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , th e Dep ut ie s’ ent ry in to th e Co ffi ns ’ ga rag e was a vi ol at io n o f th e Fo urthAm en dm en t. The ga rag e h ere i s at ta ch edto th e h om e it se lf, p ut ti ng itin cl os er p ro xi m it y

to th e h om e th ananun at ta ch edga rag e. Inco ntras t wi tha carp ort, th e at ta ch edgarag e h as wall s o n t hr ee s id es an d h as th e cap ab il it y , if t he ou ts id e do oris rol le d d own , of b ei ng clo se d t o m ai nt ai n p riv acy. Ms . Cof fin als o at te m pt edto ex erci se he r Fo urth Am en dm en t ri gh ts . In h er fi rs t co nv ers at io n wi th Lut z, sh e ex pl ai ne d t ha t h er h us ba ndm ig htne eda whi le be fo re h e wou ldbe ab le to co m e to th e d oo r. Lut z ex pr es se d h is wil li ng ne ss to wait , andMs . Cof fin , by cl os in g a ndlo ck in g t he fro ntdo or , in di cat edth atsh e was m ai nt ai ni ng he r pr iv acy in th e m ean ti m e. Fo ll owi ng th is en co un te r, whe n M s. Co ffi n n ot ic edLut z wal ki ng up to he r win do w th ro ug h h er b us he s, s he scr eam edat h im to ge t o utof h er b us he s an d o ff h er p ro pe rty andth reat en edto cal l t he po li ce. Fi na ll y , andm os t si gn ifi can tl y , when Lut z an d B ran dau re m ai ne d o n t he pro pe rty, Ms. Co ffi n at te m pt edto clo se th e g arag e d oo r in ord er t o m ai nt ai n p riv acy in tha t ar ea as well
. Und er the se cir cu m st an ces an d i n l ig htof M s. Co ffi n’s i nd ic at io ns th atsh e in te nd edto m ai nt ai n p riv acy, we ho ldth aten te rin g the ga rag e as Ms . Cof fin at te m pt edto clo se itwas avi ol at io n o f th e Fo urth Am en dm en t. 23IV. Qual ifi edIm m un it y W e m us t n ex t ad dr es s wh ethe r, on th e p ert in en t d at e, itwas a lre ady cle arl y es tabl is he d b y

pre ex is ti ng law t ha t en te rin g t he Co ffi ns op enga rag e in th e fac e o f Ms . Cof fin s’ att em

pt s t o e xe rci se he r Fo urth Am en dm en t p riv acy righ ts , in cl ud in g he r reque stth atth e Dep ut ie s l eav e th e p ro pe rty andhe r at te m ptto clo se th e g arag e do or , wou ldvi ol at e th e Fo urth Am en dm en t. We ho ldth atth e Dep ut ie s d idno t vi ol at e cl earl y

est ab li sh edFo urth Am en dm en t l aw. Inqu al ifi edimm

un it y cas es , th is Co urt m

us t “ de te rm in e whe th er the rig ht
was cle arl y

est ab li sh edsu ch th ata reas on ab le off ic ia l wo ul d u nd ers ta ndth atwhat he is do in g v io la te s t ha t ri gh t.” Ba sh ir v . Roc kd al e Cn ty., Ga., 44 5 F .3d13 23 , 13 27 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . Exactfactua l i de nt it y with a p rev io us ly deci de d c as e is no t re qu ire d, b utth e unl awfu ln es s o f th e co nduc t m us t be ap paren t fr om

pre -ex is ti ng law. Id . at 1 33 0– 31 ; Vi nyard v . W il so n, 3 11 F.3d 13 40 , 13 50 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). “ The cri ti cal in qu iry is wh ethe r th e la w pro vi de d [t he Dep ut ie s] with ‘fai r warn in g’ th at[th ei r] con du ctvi ol at edth e Fo urth Am en dm en t.” McC li sh v. Nu ge nt , 48 3 F .3d12 31 , 12 48 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (quo ti ng Hop e v . Pel zer, 53 6 U.S. 7 30 , 74 1, 1 22 S. Ct. 2 50 8, 2 51 6 (2 00 2) ). It i s i m po rta ntto em

ph as iz e th at th is in qu iry ‘ m

us t b e u nd ert ak enin li gh t o f th e sp eci fic co nt ex t o f th e cas e, no t as a br oa d g en eral pro po si ti on .’ ” Bro ss eauv. Hau ge n, 5 43 U.S. 19 4, 1 98 , 12 5 S . Ct. 2459 6, 5 99 (20 04 ) (p er cu ria m) (quo ti ng Sau ci er v . Katz, 5 33 U.S. 19 4, 2 01 , 12 1 S
.

Ct . 21 51 , 21 56 (20 01 )). OurCo urt l oo ks on ly to b in di ng pre ced en t— cas es fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt, the Elev en th Cir cu it , andth e h ig he stco urt o f th e st at e u nd er wh ic h t he cla im aro se —t o d et erm in e whe th er the rig htinqu es ti on was cl earl y est ab li sh edat t he ti m e o f th e v io la ti on . See Am ne st y Int ’l, USA v. Bat tl e, 55 9 F .3d11 70 , 11 84 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). The Co ffi ns arg ue th atKy ll o v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 33 U.S. 27 , 12 1 S . Ct. 2 03 8, (2 00 1) , equ at es a ga rag e wit h aho m e an d c le arl y est ab li sh es th atth ey

are en ti tl ed to Fo urth Am en dm en t p ro te ct io n i n t he ir g arag e. The wo rdga rag e ap pe ars in Ky ll o o nl y

on e ti m e, an d, i n the ve ry sen te nc e in whi ch itap pe ars , th e Supr em e Co urt ex pr es sl y

di st in gu is he d b etween a ga rag e an d aho m e. See i d. at30 , 12 1 S
. Ct . at 2 04 1 (“ The scan s ho wedth atth e ro of ov er the ga rag e an d asi de wall of pe ti ti on er’s h om e were r el at iv el y ho t co m pa redto th e res t o f th e h om e.”). Hadth e Supr em e Co urt m ean t t o e qu at e a g arag e wit h aho m e, th e Co urt wo ul d h av e sa id

“ ro of an d s id ewal l o f th e g arag e.” Itdi d n otsay tha t. Rat he r, itsai d “ ro of ov er the ga rag e an d s id ewal l o f th e h om e.” Add it io na ll y , andsi gn ifi can tl y , inKy ll o, t he po li ce co nduc te d a th erm al -imagin g s can of t he en ti re ho me . Onl y by scan ni ng th e en ti re h om e an d th e h om es of n ei gh bo rs were the po li ce ab le to asc ert ai n tha t ce rta in po rti on s o f th e 25pr em is es —m ai nl y th e ro of ov er the Ky ll o’s g arag e an d t he si de wall of t he ho m e—we re h otby com

pa ris on to th e res t o f th ei r ho m e an d t he ho m es of the ir
ne ig hb or s. See id . (no ti ng th atcert ai n a reas were “ rel at iv el y ho t as co m

paredto th e res t o f th e h om e,” thu s m ak in g c le ar tha t t he en ti re h om e was sea rch edwith t he th erm al -imagin g s can so th atth e rel at iv e h eatof t he sev eral area s co ul d b e co m pa red ). The p ol ic e in tru si on was i nt o t he ho m e it se lf, a s wel l as th e g arag e. Bec au se th ere was anin tru si on in to th e sp eci al ly-pro te ct edsp ace o f th e h om e, th ere was no furth er n eedto co ns id er the ga rag e. Andin fact , th e o pi ni on m ad e n o fu rth er m en ti onof t he ga rag e. Insu m , th e Supr em e Co urt i n Kyllo ha d n o o ccas io n to , anddi d n ot , add res s t he ex te ntto whi ch anatt ach edgarag e sh ou ldsh are t he Fo urthAm en dm en t p ro te ct io n o f th e h om e. Alt ho ug h s om e co urts ha ve su gg es te d t ha t the Fo urth Am en dm en t p ro te ct io n at ta ch edto th e g arag e is th e equi va le ntof the pro te ct io n p ro vi de d t he ho m e it se lf,
se e, e.g ., Uni te d S ta te s v . Oaxa ca, 2 33 F.3d11 54 , 11 57 (9t h C ir. 2 00 0) , ot he r co urts an d ju ris ts ha ve su gg es te d o th erwi se . See Oax aca, 2 33 F.3d11 54 , 11 59 (Grab er, J ., di ss en ti ng ) (“ Oax aca h adwil li ng ly leftth e g arag e d oo r wid e o pe n. Th e ga rag e is sm al l, wh il e it s d oo r is hu ge ; an d t he ga rag e fac es th e st reetat c lo se ran ge , so op en in g i t ex po se d m os t o f th e in te rio r to read y publ ic vi ew. Thes e fac ts
m ak e th is cas e cl os er t o Un it edSta te s v . San ta na , 42 7 U.S. 3 8, 9 6 S . Ct. 2 40 6 26(1 97 6) ”); Daug he nb au gh v. Ci ty of Tiff in , 15 0 F .3d59 4, 6 03 (6t h C ir. 1 99 8) (“ [T]he d iv erg en t co nc lu si on s re ach edby the di st ric t co urt an d t hi s co urt co nc ern in g t he st atus of Daug he nb au gh ’s gar ag e is furth er i nd ic at io n t ha t reas on ab le min ds can di fferon whet he r itsh ou ldbe co ns id eredas p artof t he
cu rti la ge ”); Uni te d S ta te s v . Kni gh t, 4 51 F.2d27 5, 2 78 (5t h C ir. 1 97 2) (“ Not hi ng in th e o ffi cers ’ co nduc t wh enth ey en te redth e p ro pe rty can b e co ns id ereda se arch
. Offi cer Wade , witho uthi s g un dra wn, wal ke d t o t he si te of h um anact iv it y , whi ch
was th e g arag e ad

joi ni ng th e res id en ce.”) ; cf . Uni te d S ta te s v . W

rig ht , 44 9 F .2d 13 55 , 13 62 (D.C. Cir . 19 71 ) (“ A gar ag e is no t a h ou se , no r is ita dwe ll in g o r a ho m e. . . . certa in ly the pro te ct io n a ffo rd edis so m ethi ng les s t ha n t ha t af fo rd ed[a] dwe ll in g.” ). As ex pl ai ne d i n t he pre vi ou s s ect io n d is cu ss in g wh ethe r a Fo urth Am en dm en t v io la ti on oc curred , nei th er So ko lo w no r Kau z n orTay lo r cl earl y es tabl is h t ha t en try int o t he op enga rag e was a Fo urth Am en dm en t v io la ti on . So ko lo w can no t cl earl y

est ab li sh th e la w forth e in st an t ca se be cau se itis no t cl ear fro m th e fac ts of S ok ol ow wh ethe r th e g arag e was op enan d wh ethe r th ere was a pa ss ag eway fro m

th e driv eway th ro ug h t he ga rag e to anacce ss do orof t he ho m e. Kau z can no t cl earl y

est ab li sh th e la w forth is cas e b ecau se itis no t cl ear f ro m it s fact s tha t the off

ic er co ul d s ee an in te rio r do orfro m th e g arag e to th e h om e. Thu s, 27ne it he r So ko lo w no r Kau z m ad e an y ho ld in g wi th res pe ctto anoff ic er en te rin g a n op engarag e to kn oc k o n avi si bl e acc es s d oo r to th e h om e. Tay lo r can no t cl earl y es tabl is h t he law fo r th is cas e b ecau se th e o ffi cers in th atcas e fo rci bl y en te reda cl os edga rag e. Thu s n ei th er Ky ll o n orTay lo r no r So ko lo w no r Kau z cl earl y es tabl is h t ha t en try int o t hi s o pe n g arag e was a Fo urth Am en dm en t v io la ti on . 1 5 Hav in g c on cl ud edth atno bi nd in g c as e la w cle arl y est ab li sh edth e ru le of la w forth is cas e, we are l eftwith t he qu es ti on of wh ethe r th e Dep ut ie s’ ent ry of t he at ta ch edga rag e was a vi ol at io n o f th e Fo urth Am en dm en t as a m at te r of ob vi ou s cl ari ty. “ [A] gen eral co ns ti tu ti on al rul e al read y id en ti fie d i n t he de ci si on al law m ay ap pl y with o bv io us clarit y

to th e sp eci fic co nduc t i n que st io n, ev enth ou gh th e v ery act io n i n que st io n h as [no t] pre vi ou sl y be enhe ldun la wfu l.” Un it edSta te s v . Lan ie r, 52 0 U.S. 2 59 , 27 1, 1 17 S. Ct. 1 21 9, 1 22 7 (1 99 7) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d) . Cas es with “ fu nd am en ta ll y si m il ar” o r “ m at eri al ly sim il ar” f act s ar e n ot ne ces sa ry fora fi nd in g t ha t t he law was cle arl y est ab li sh ed , bu t p reex is ti ng law
m us t p ro vi de th e o ffi cers with fa ir n ot ic e th atth ei r co nduc t i s u nc on st itut io na l. Hop e v . Pel zer, 5 36 U.S. 73 0, 7 41 , 12 2 S . Ct. 2 50 8, 2 51 6 (2 00 2) . To fi ndth ata
The dissent see ms to place pa rticular r eliance upon Pay ton and its languag e, “the 1 5 unambiguous phy sical dimensions of an individual’s home.” Pay ton v. New Yor

k, 445 U.S. 573, 589, 100 S. Ct . 1371, 1381–82. Howeve r, despite the dissent’ s repe ated insistence , Pay ton simply did not involve a g ara g e at a ll. Thus, Pay ton cannot cle arly

establish whether

an open attache d g ara g e is part a

nd parc el of the home
. 28br oa d p rin ci pl e o f la w cle arl y est ab li sh es th e la w as t o asp eci fic setof f act s, “ it
m us t d o s o ‘with o bv io us cla rity ’ to th e p oi ntth atev ery ob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e go ve rn m en t o ffi ci al faci ng th e ci rcu m st an ces wou ldkn ow t ha t t he off ic ia l’s
co nduc t d idvi ol at e fed eral law wh enth e o ffi ci al act ed .” Vin y ardv. Wils on , 31 1 F.3 d 1 34 0, 1 35 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2)
. Ourcas e la w has m ad e cl ear t ha t “ ob vi ou s cl ari ty” case s wi ll be rare . See, e.g ., Lee v. Fe rrar o, 2 84 F.3d11 88 , 11 99 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (ref erri ng to ob vi ou s cl ari ty cases as a“ na rro w exc ep ti on ”); Ro dr ig ue z v . Farre ll , 28 0 F .3d13 41 , 13 50 n.1 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) (“ W e v ery oc cas io na ll y en co un te r th e ex cep ti on al cas e in whi cha de fen da ntoff

ic er’s act s ar e so eg reg io us th atpre ex is ti ng , fact -s pe ci fic pr eced en t was no t n eces sa ry to gi ve cle ar warn in g t o e ve ry reas on ab le
. . . of

fic er th atwhatth e d efen da ntoff ic er was do in g m

us t b e ‘un reas on ab le ’ wit hi n t he
m ean in g o f th e Fo urth Am en dm en t.”) . This is be cau se “ [p ]ubl ic off ic ia ls are n ot ob li ga te d t o b e cre at iv e o r im ag in at iv e in dra win g a na lo gi es fro m pre vi ou sl y de ci de d c as es .” Adams v. St . Luci e Cn ty. Sh eri ff’s Dep ’t, 96 2 F .2d15 63 , 15 75 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2) (Edm on ds on , J., di ss en ti ng ), ap pr ov edenba nc , 99 8 F .2d92 3 (1 1t h C ir.1 99 3) (pe r cu ria m). “ A reas on ab le off ic ia l’s awar en es s o f th e ex is te nc e of anab st ractrig ht
. . . do es no t eq ua te to kn owl ed ge th at his co nduc t i nf rin ge s t he rig ht . Thu s, [i ]f case l aw, in factua l t erm s, h as no t s ta ke d o uta br ig htli ne , qu al ifi ed 29imm

un it y alm os t al way s p ro te ct s t he de fen da nt .” Sm it h v . Mat to x, 1 27 F.3d14 16 , 14 19 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on s o m it te d) (pe r cu ria m). “ W e h av e no te d t ha t i t wo ul d b e in ap pr op ria te to ho ldgo ve rn m en t o ffi ci al s t o ahi gh er l ev el of kn owl ed ge an d u nd ers ta nd in g o f th e le ga l l an ds cap e th an[th at ] di sp la y edby jud ge s wh os e ev eryday

bu si ne ss itis to de ci ph er the m ean in g o f jud ic ia l o pi ni on s.” Den no v. Sc h. Bd . Of Vol us ia , Cnt y ., Fla., 2 18 F.3d12 67 , 12 74 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (ci ti ng Bart s v . Jo yne r, 86 5 F .2d11 87 , 11 94 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ).

“ Obv io us cla rity ” cas es , rare i n g en eral , wil l b e ev enm or e rar e in th e Fo urth Am en dm en t ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy con te xtbe cau se itis in he ren tl y fact -s pe ci fic , th us no t l en di ng it se lf t o c le arl y est ab li sh edlaw. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Dun n, 4 80 U.S. 29 4, 3 01 , 10 7 S . Ct. 1 13 4, 1 13 9– 40 (19 87 ) (s etti ng forth fou r fac to rs as

“ us efu l an al yti cal to ol s” to de te rm in e “ whe th er the areain qu es ti on is so in ti m at el y ti edto th e h om e it se lf tha t i t s ho ul d b e p la cedun de r th e h om e’s ‘um br el la ’ of Fo urthAm en dm en t p ro te ct io n” ); O’Con no r v. Ort eg a, 48 0 U.S. 7 09 , 71 5, 1 07 S. Ct . 14 92 , 14 96 (19 87 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atbe cau se th e co urt “ ha [s ] no tal is m anth at de te rm in es in all cas es th os e p riv acy exp ect at io ns th atso ci ety is pre paredto acce pt as reas on ab le ” an d “ [b ]ecaus e th e rea so nabl en es s o f anex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy, as well as t he ap pr op ria te st an da rdfora se arch , is un de rs to odto di fferacco rd in g t o co nt ex t” th e Co urt g iv es weig htto va rio us fact or s i n d et erm in in g t he ap pr op ria te 30le ve l o f Fo urth Am en dm en t p ro te ct io n) ; Ol iv er v . Uni te d S ta te s, 4 66 U.S. 17 9, 1 77 ,

10 4 S . Ct. 1 73 5, 1 74 1 (“No s in gl e fac to r de te rm in es whet he r anin di vi du al le gi ti m at el y

m ay cla im un de r th e Fo urth Am en dm en t t ha t a p la ce s ho ul d b e fre e o f go ve rn m en t i nt ru si on no t au th or iz edby w arra nt .”); Uni te d S ta te s v . Sm it h, 9 78 F.2 d 1 71 , 18 0 (5 th Cir . 19 92 ) (“ Any det erm in at io n o f th e rea so nabl en es s o f an in di vi du al ’s exp ect at io n o f pr iv acy is n eces sa ril y factin te ns iv e.”). Fo r a num be r of reas on s, we ar e u nabl e to co nc lu de th at , as am at te r of ob vi ou s cl ari ty, anop en at ta ch edga rag e is eit he r a p artof t he ho m e, oren ti tl edto th e sa m e le ve l o f pr ot ect io n a s the ho m e. One in di cat io n t ha t t hi s i s n ota m at te r of ob vi ou s cl ari ty are th e d eci si on s fro m ot he r co urts th ro ug ho utth e co un try con cl ud in g t ha t n o F ou rth Am en dm en t vi ol at io n o ccu rredin cir cu m st an ces ve ry si m il ar t o t ho se faci ng th e d ep ut ie s i n t hi s cas e. See, e.g ., Uni te d S ta te s v . Cot a-Lo pe z, 35 8 F . Sup p. 2 d 5 79 , 59 0– 91 (W .D. 1 6 Only case s from the Supreme Court of the United States, the Ele venth Circuit, or the 1 6 Florida Supreme Court ca

n clea rly establish the law in our Circ uit, but opini ons from other c ourts can sug g est that rea sonable jurists would not know that cer tain fac tual situations rise to the level of constitutional violations, and theref ore r easona

ble offic ers would not either . Denno v. Sch. Bd. of Volusia, Cnty ., Fla., 218 F .3d 1267, 1272–76 (11th Cir. 2000) (c onsideringa number of non-bindingopinions because “[i] n [t he Court’s] attempt to identify the leg al landsca

pe that would have be en appa

rent to such a

rea sonable school of

ficial, it is instructive to take note of the perspe ctive of se vera l rea sonable jurists who haveattempted to ar ticulate the [releva

nt] leg al landsca pe”)
. Contrary to the dissent’s rebuke , our consider ation of these non- binding c ases doe s not assume or r equire that office rs will sift through the law of e very jurisdiction. Rather, as we noted in Denno, the de velopment of the la w in other jurisdictions mere ly ref lects the leg al landsca

pe, 31Tex . 20 02 ) (co nc lu di ng th atoff ic ers ’ en try int o a n a tt ach edop enga rag e to kn oc k
on th e se rv ic e d oo r “ was en ti rel y reas on ab le , anddi d n otvi ol at e th e Fo urth Am en dm en t” be cau se “ [i]n e nt eri ng th e o pe n g arag e, th e o ffi cers m erel y to okon e of two alt ern at iv e m etho ds of g et ti ng to th e Res id en ce (t he in ne r ga rag e d oo r or fro ntdo or )”); Trach t v . Comm ’r of Pub. Sa fet y , 59 2 N.W.2d 8 63 , 86 5 (M in n. Ap p. 19 99 ) (h ol di ng th atwher e o ffi cers en te redanatt ach edga rag e th ro ug h t he op en ga rag e d oo r fo r th e p ur

po se of kno ck in g o n t he in te rio r se rv ic e d oo r “ th ere [ was ]
no ba si s fo r di st in gu is hi ng th e o ffi cers ’ en try int o t he ga rag e fro m en te rin g apo rch to kn oc k o n ado orto a ho us e” an d tha t t he refo re “ [t]he off ic ers di d n otvi ol at e th e Fo urthAm en dm en t b y

en te rin g t he ga rag e an d kno ck in g o n t he servi ce d oo r”); St at e v . Aki ns , C4- 99 -1 06 6, 2 00 0 M in n. Ap p. LEXIS 2 31 , *4 –1 1 (M in n. Ap p. Mar . 14 , 20 00 ) (h ol di ng th atAki ns ha d n o re as on ab le ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy in h is at ta ch edop enga rag e b ecau se “ [p ]eop le ’s exp ect at io ns foracce ss area s o f th ei r pr em is es co m

m on ly diff

er fro m th ei r ex pe ct at io ns form or e se cl ud edarea s,” a nd

“ m em be rs of t he publ ic wou ldreas on ab ly ass um e th atth ey co ul d u se [th e g arag e fo r acc es s], whenth e o ve rh eaddo orwas o pe n” ); c f. Sta te v. Du ha rt, 8 10 So . 2d

how re asonable jurists have interpr eted r eleva nt prec edent, a

nd, thus, how rea sonable off icer s might.

3297 2, 9 73 (Fl a. 4th DCA 2 00 2) (ho ld in g t ha t o ffi cer’s en tra nc e in to anatt ach ed

carp ort— in it ia ll y

refe rredto in th e o pi ni on as aga rag e—wa s n ota vi ol at io n o f th e Fo urthAm en dm en t b ecau se “ [a]ltho ug h i t i s wel l s et tl edth aton e h as an ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy in h is ho m e o r it s cu rti la ge , th e Fo urth Am en dm en t i s n ot ne ces sa ril y

a pr ot ect io n i n a reas of t he ho m e, as in th is cas e, whi chare o pe n a nd
ex po se d t o p ub li c v ie w,” an d c it in g a s au th or it y forth is pro po si ti on Sta te v. Detl efs on , 33 5 S o. 2 d 3 71 (Fl a. 1s t DCA 1 97 6) , des cri be d a s h ol di ng “ no reas on ab le expe ct at io n o f pr iv acy on fr on t p or ch of h om e whe re d el iv ery m enan d ot he rs were fre e to ob se rv e p la nt s t he reo n” ). Thes e cas es are ap pl ic at io ns of t he well -es tabl is he d l aw, m en ti on edab ov e: “ Co urts have he ldth atth e p ol ic e wit h le gi ti m at e b us in es s m ay

en te r are as of t he cu rti la ge whi ch are i m pl ie dl y op ento us e by the publ ic .” LaFav e § 2.3 (c). Rel at ed ly, whe n c ou rts have ex te nd edpro te ct io n t o aga rag e, of te n g reat em ph as is is gi ve n t o t he factth atth e g arag e was clo se d. Se e, e.g ., Stat e v . Jen ki ns , 15 5 P .3d11 57 , 11 60 (Id ah o 2 00 7) (ex te nd in g F ou rth Am en dm en t p ro te ct io n t o t he ga rag e b ecau se it“ was pa rt a ndpa rcel of t he st ru ctur e co ns ti tu ti ng hi s h om e, an d
wa s s ecu re d w ith a do or

clo se d a t the ti me po li ce a rr iv ed at th e h ome ”) (e m

ph as is ad de d) ; Bi es v. St at e, 25 1 N.W.2d 4 61 , 46 4 (Wis . 19 77 ) (“ It i s n otdi sp ut edth atth e in te rio r of

de fen da nt ’s gar ag e was withi n t he Fo urth Am en dm en t’s p ro te ct io n. Th e 33ga rag e was lo cat edwithi n t he cu rti la ge of h is dwel li ng , anditwas n otin an y sen se a se m i-p ub li c are a. Th e o ver he ad ga ra ge do or

fa ci ng on th e p ub li c a ll ey wa s s hu t,
re fl ect in g a rea so na bl e exp ect at io n o f p ri va cy a s t o the in te ri or of th e gar ag e .”) (em ph as is ad de d) . The o pe n g arag e d oo r, whi ch bo thdi m in is he s t he Co ffi ns ’
reas on ab le expe ct at io n o f pr iv acy w it hi n the ga rag e an d c reat es a vi si bl e pa ss ag eway to anacce ss do orof t he ho m e, pu ts th is cas e in a co nt ex t wh ere i t i s affe ct edby a nu m

be r of co m pe ti ng do ctrin es : Payto n’s ab so lu te pro te ct io n o f th e ho m e, th e Dun n c urti la ge fact oran al y si s, an d a reas im pl ie dl y op ento publ ic us e. Alt ho ug h we h av e co nc lu de d t ha t, es pe ci al ly in l ig htof M s. Co ffi n’s in st ru ct io n fo r th e o ffi cers to lea ve he r pr op erty an d h er at te m

ptto clo se th e g arag e do or , th e Dep ut ie s’ entry of t he ga rag e d idin factvi ol at e th e Fo urth Am en dm en t, we can no t co nc lu de th atth e la w was cl earl y est ab li sh edsu ch th atreas on ab le of fic ers faci ng th es e ci rcu m st an ces wou ldkn ow tha t t he ir c on du ctwou ldvi ol at e fed eral law. Sev eral reas on s i nf orm ou r co nc lu si on in th is reg ard . Firs t an d fo rem os t i s t he ab se nc e o f an y bi nd in g c as e la w whi ch in fo rm s t he se off ic ers th at th ey were v io la ti ng th e Fo urth Am en dm en t. Sec on d, t he in di cat io ns fro m juri st s i n no n- bi nd in g c as es th aten tra nc e in to anatt ach edop enga rag e m ig htno t v io la te th e Fo urthAm en dm en t, p art ic ul arl y wher e itap pe ars th atth e p as sa ge way th ro ug h t he ga rag e to a do orto th e h ou se fal ls withi n t he do ctrin e o f are as lef t i m pl ie dl y op en 34to us e b y

th e p ub li c. Andsi gn ifi can tl y , Flo rid a cas es , of wh ic h t he Depu ti es m ay well ha ve be enaware, re co gn iz e th e d oc tri ne th atarea s o f th e cu rti la ge th at de li ve rym enan d o th ers us e m ig htbe im pl ie dl y op ento th e p ub li c. See St at e v . Duh art , 81 0 S o. 2 d 9 72 , 97 3. Th ird , th e law with re sp ectto ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy is a factsen si ti ve in qu iry no t l en di ng it se lf t o c le arl y est ab li sh edlaw. See Oli ve r, 46 6 U.S. at17 7, 1 04 S. Ct. 1 74 1. Fo urth , alt ho ug h t he se off ic ers ha d b eento ld
on ce t o l eav e th e p ro pe rty, the Flo rid a st atut e requi redth atth ey serve th e le ga l pr oc es s p ers on al ly. See d is cu ss io n i n P artII. Fin al ly, th e Dep ut ie s re as on ab ly be li ev edth atMs . Cof

fin was re si st in g s erv ic e o f le ga l p ro ces s, a m is de m ean or un de r Fl or id a la w, see Fla . Sta t. An n. § 84 3.0 2, wh ic h o ccu rredinth e p res en ce o f th e o ffi cers , th us arg uabl y tri gg eri ng th e Fl or id a st atut e au th or iz in g t he off ic ers to
m ak e an imm ed ia te arre st . See Fl a. St at . Ann . § 9 01 .15 & (1 ). Dep ut ie s Lu tz an d B ran dau wer e th us face d wi th a ve ry un us ua l s cen ari o a nd ha d o nl y a m om en t t o d eci de whatto do . “ The qu al ifi edimm un ity st an da rd‘ gi ve s am pl e ro om form is ta ke n ju dg m en ts ’ by pro te ct in g ‘all bu t t he pl ai nl y in co m pe te nt orth os e who kn owi ng ly vio la te th e la w.’ ” Hun te r v. B ry an t, 5 02 U.S. 22 4, 2 29 , 11 2 S . Ct. 5 34 , 53 7 (1 99 1) (pe r cu ria m) (quo ti ng Mal le y v. Br ig gs , 47 5 U.S. 3 35 , 34 3, 3 41 , 10 6 S . Ct. 1 09 2, 1 09 7, 1 09 6 (1 98 6) ). “ Thi s ac co m m od at io n fo r reas on ab le erro r ex is ts be cau se ‘ of fic ia ls sh ou ldno t err al way s o n t he si de of 35cau ti on ’ be cau se th ey fearbe in g s ue d.” Id. (quo ti ng Davi s v . Sch erer , 46 8 U.S. 18 3, 1 04 S. Ct. 3 01 2, 3 02 0 (1 98 4) ). Stand in g o n t he dri ve way , ful ly aware th atth e Co ffi ns kn ew th ey

were wai ti ng to de li ve r pr oc es s an d t ha t s erv ic e o f pr oc es s was be in g o bs tru ct ed , th e au to m at ic ga rag e d oo r be ga n t o c lo se . This oc cu rredwhi le Bran dau was see ki ng advi ce fr om a supe rv is or

as t o wh atto do ne xt . The Dep ut ie s, b y

th is ti m e, reco gn iz edth atth ey li ke ly hadpro babl e cau se to arre stMs . Co ffi n fo r res is ti ng servi ce o f pr oc es s, an d tha t Fl or id a la w gav e th em th e ri gh t t o imm ed ia te ly arres t. At t ha t p oi nt , Bran dau was face d wi th a sp li t-s eco ndde ci si on as to whet he r to en te r th e g arag e in ord er t o re ach th e in te rio r do or , with a ll of t he is su es di sc us se d i n t hi s o pi ni on run ni ng th ro ug h h er m in d b utwitho utth e b en efi t of ti m e to an al y ze t he m , andwitho utth e b en efi t o f bi nd in g o n- po in t ca se law. Alt ho ug h we c on cl ud e th atth e o ffi cers di d i n fa ctvi ol at e th e Fo urth Am en dm en t un de r th e fac ts an d c irc um st an ces of t hi s ca se , we can no t co nc lu de , inli gh t o f al l th e fo reg oi ng co ns id erat io ns , th atth e o ffi cers ha ve vi ol at edcle arl y -es tabl is he d Fo urthAm en dm en t l aw. 1 7 The stronglanguag e in the dissent sug g ests a firmly held belief

that qualified immunity 1 7 should not apply

in this case. The dissent appar ently believes e ither: 1) that Pay ton, Kyllo, Sokolow, or Kauz actua lly holds that an open attached g ara g e is part a nd parc el of the home ; or 2) that it is obvious as a matter of c ommon sense that an ope n attache d g ara g e is just like “a living room, a

den, or a bedroom.” Wit h respe ct to the forme r, we believe w e havedemonstrated at the ver y least that neither

Pay ton nor Kyllo nor Sokolow nor Kauz clearly establishes that an open attac hed g ara g e with a pa ssag ewa y to a visible door to the kitchen is par t and par cel of

the home. With respect to the latter , we simply disagree ; we believethat delivery men not 36Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, t he jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt i s

AFFIRMED.

infreque ntly

use a pa ssag ewa

y through an open g ara g e to ac cess a visible kitchen door in circ umstances similar to the situation here . We do not believe this g ara g e wa s just li ke a living room, a de n, or a be droom. 37BARKETT, Circ ui t Jud ge , con cu rri ng in pa rt anddi ss en ti ng in part ( joi ne d b y Ch ie f Ju dg e Dub in a an d J ud ge Mart in ): 1 The m ajor it y ’s op in io n t od ay do es no th in g l es s tha n e vi sc erat e th e o nc e in vi ol at e p ro te ct io ns hi st or ic al ly accor de d the ho m e b y th e Fo urth Am en dm en t o f th e Uni te d S ta te s C on st itut io n. To acco m pl is h t hi s t as k, the m ajor it y ig no res th e m os t b as ic , bri gh t-l in e p rin ci pl e o f th e Supr em e Co urt’s Fo urth Am en dm en t juri sp ru de nc e: th atwarran tl es s s earc he s an d s ei zu res oc curri ng withi n t he
un am bi gu ou s p hysic al di m en si on s o f th e h om e are pre su m pt iv el y un co ns ti tu ti on al
. The m ajor it y

cir cum ve nt s t hi s fu nd am en ta l p rece ptoc cupyin g the ve ry co re o f th e Fo urthAm en dm en t b y

co nc lu di ng , witho utan y ex pl an at io n, t ha t an en cl os edga rag e ph y si cal ly atta ch edto a ho m e—a ndsh ari ng th e h om e’s ro of an d wal ls —d oe s n ot ex is t wi th in th e u na m

bi gu ou s p hysic al di m en si on s o f th e h om e. Thi s co nc lu si on res ts onth e fau lty

pre m is e th atord in ary pe op le ex pe ctth atde li ve rym enwil l co m e in to th ei r at ta ch ed , enc lo se d g arag es an d t ha t d el iv erym enha ve a ri gh t t o d o s o, an d fai ls to reco gn iz e th atanatt ach ed , enc lo se d g arag e is no di ffer en t t ha n a ny oth er ro om in th e h ou se , andis th us en ti tl edto th e sa m e b lank etFo urthAm en dm en t pr ot ect io ns as ali vi ng roo m , a de n, o r a b edro om .
My concur renc e with the majority

is lim ited to its conclusion that the deputies violated 1 the Coffins’ c onstitut ional rights. 38Norcan th is co nc lu si on be squa redwith b in di ng pre ced en t fr om bo th th e Supr em e Co urt an d t hi s C ou rt c le arl y est ab li sh in g tha t g arag es are en ti tl edto su ch
co ns ti tu ti on al pro te ct io n, wh ic h g av e th e d ep ut ie s fa ir wa rn in g t ha t t he ir c on du ct vi ol at edth e Co ffi ns ’ co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. Whil e th e m ajor it y fin ds a Fo urth Am en dm en t v io la ti on in th is cas e, itdo es so , no t b y reco gn iz in g t he ga rag e’s ob vi ou s s ta tu s as an ot he r ro om in th e h ou se , bu t ra th er b y ap pl y in g, wi th ou t s up po rt an d i n c on fli ctwith S up rem e Co urt p rece de nt , a ne wly m in te d “ to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces ” te stwhi chlo ok s t o wh ethe r it s d oo r is op enor c lo se d a ndwhet he r a pe rs on ha s re pe at ed ly tol d o ffi cers to lea ve it . The m ajor it y op in io n upe nd s n oton ly th e la w of s earc h andsei zu re b utth e la w of qua li fie d i m m un it y as we ll
. 2 Although I

believe that this case should be re solved on the ground that the Coffins re lied 2 upon—that the deputies’ w arr antless entry into the Coffins’ home violated the Coff ins’ clea rly established constitutional rig hts, reg ardle ss of whethe r the de puties had proba ble ca use to arr est Mrs. Coffin—I

also believe that the majority ’s exposit ion of Florida law on the pr obable c ause issue is just wrong. D espite the fa ct that this issue was not square ly befor e this en banc Court, the majority

g oes fa r out of its way

to decide that probable c ause f or the a rre st ex isted. Nothing in Florida la

w comes c lose to supporting this proposition. The majority

rea ches the untenable c onclusion that Mrs. Coffin rea sonably appea red to obstruct justice mere ly

by failingto open the fr ont door of her house. Maj. Op. at 13-14. But “[t] he thre shold for establishingthe commission of [obs truction] under [§ 843.02, Fla. Stat.] is that the offic er be in the ‘lawf ul execution’ of a ‘ leg al duty .’ To mee t this threshold, the c onduct of the off icer must be consistent with the Fourth Ame ndment . . . .” C.E.L . v. State, 995 So. 2d 558, 560 (F la. Dist. Ct. App. 2008), aff ’d, 24 So. 3d 1181 (Fla . 2009). Unde r the F ourth Amendment, the de puties could not have la wfully require d Mrs. Coffin to open her front door beca use they did not possess a war

rant of a ny sort. See Ke ntucky

v. King , 563 U.S. —, slip op. at 16 (May

16, 2011) (“ When law enf orce ment office rs who ar e not ar med with a wa

rra nt knock on a door . . . . the occupa nt has no obligation to open the door or to spea k.”); United States v. Tobin, 923 F.2d 1506, 1512 (11th Cir. 1991) ( en banc ) (r ecognizi ngthat the occ upants of a house are “fr ee to de ny

[an office r’s] reque st [ to enter] and alter natively talk to the [officers] through a closed door” when the of fice rs lack a

war rant). T hus, Mrs. Coffin’s fa ilure to open he r door did 39I. Ba ck gr ou nd

The m ajor it y

om it s m an y

fact s, v ie wedin th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e Co ffi ns , th atil lu st rat e p reci se ly why the Fo urth Am en dm en t’s b rig ht -li ne rul e pr oh ib it in g warran tl es s en try int o aho m e is so ess en ti al . W he n Dep ut y

Bran dau
not obstruct the lawf

ul execution of a leg al duty ; she mere ly exercised he r F ourth Amendment rights. Cf. Rodrigue z v. S tate, 964 So. 2d 833, 837 (F la. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) (holding that individual did not commi t obstruction by telling the deputy

to ge t off his proper

ty and re treating to his house when the “ deputy had only attempted to eng ag e him in a conse nsual citizen encounte r”) ; H.H. v. State, 775 So. 2d 397, 398-99 (F la. Dist. Ct. App. 2000) (not obstruction to flee when the of

fice rs had no a

uthority to detain individual); R.S. v. S tate, 531 So. 2d 1026, 1026-27 (F la. Dist. Ct. App. 1988) (not obstruction to refuse to answer questions when off

icer s had no author ity

to demand an a

nswer) . The majority ’s re sponse to this basic tenet of constitutional law is that “the Deputies he re did not ente r the home; rather they enter ed an ope n g ara g e to ac cess a

nd knock on the visible door to the kitche n.” Maj. Op. at 14 n.12. But this response confuse s the point. W hether the deputies violated the Four th Amendment by

enter ing th ga rag e, while c entra l to the rest of this case , is a separ ate que stion from whether they had probable cause to arre st Mrs. Coffin for obstruc ting justice. A s they lacke d the authority

to compel Mrs. Coffin to open a ny door of he r home, he r fa ilure to open the f ront door and attempt to close the g ara g e door, r eg ardle ss of the constitutionality of the de puties subsequent entry into the g ara g e, could not haveconstituted obstruction of justice bec ause she had a F ourth Amendment right to do what she did. Moreove r, F lorida law makes cle ar that, despite Mrs. Coffin’s fa ilure to phy sically take the re strainingorder

from the de puties’ hands, the de puties could have nonetheless e ffe ctively serve d proce ss by

leavingthe re strainingorder in the mailbox or on the fr ont doorstep. See L iberman v. Commerc ial Nat’l B ank of B rowa rd Cnty ., 256 So. 2d 63, 64 (Fla. D ist. Ct . App. 1971) (mail box); Haney

v. Olin Corp., 245 So. 2d 671, 672-74 (Fla. D ist. Ct . App. 1971) (f ront doorstep). Rec og nizi ngthis point , the majority asser ts that a restra ining or der is somehow a distinct form of leg al proc ess that must be phy sically place d in the intended re cipient’s hands. That asse rtion, howeve r, finds no support in Florida law. See, e .g ., Top Dollar Pawn T oo, Inc. v. King , 861 So. 2d 1264, 1265-66 (Fla . Dist. Ct. App. 2003) (applying g ener al servic e-of -proc ess law to servic e of a

temporar y restra ining order) ; Palamara v. World Cl ass Yac hts, Inc., 824 So. 2d 194, 195 (F la. Dist. Ct. App. 2002) (holding that defe ndant had be en “pe rsonally serve d” when pr ocess se rver

left proc ess on def

endant’ s door); see also Fla . R. Civ. P . 1.070 (g overning “per sonal servic e” of

initial pleadings a

nd court orde rs). Thus, Mrs. Coff in’s failure to open her front door c ould not have constituted obstruction of justice. The majority ’s conc lusion that the deputies had pr obable c ause to a rre st her runs c ontrary

to both Florida lawand the sa nctity of the home. 40st ep pe d i ns id e th e Co ffi ns ’ ga rag e, tr ig ge rin g t he sen so r to st op th e d oo r fro m

cl os in g, Dep ut y

Lut z fo ll owe d h er i nt o t he ga rag e, an d M rs . Cof fin was t ol d s he was go in g t o b e arr es te d fo r ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce. Mrs . Cof fin ’s “ of fen se ” co ns is te d o f refu si ng th e o ffi cers ’ warra nt le ss en try int o h er h om e, a ri gh t g ua ran te edto he r by th e Fo urthAm en dm en t. She to ldth e o ffi cers sh e was “ba ffl ed ” as he r hu sb an d h ad 3 al read y be enserve d, an d a tt em

pt edto en te r he r ha ll way to ge t t he pape rs to sh ow t o th e d ep ut ie s. Unbe li ev ab ly, atth atpo in t, Br an dau g rab be d h er l eftarm an d Lu tz gr ab be d h er ri gh t arm , st an di ng on he r ba re fo otan d fr actur in g h er t oe . In p ai n, Mrs . Cof fin scr eam edan d fe ll to th e fl oo r. Lut z th entwi st edMrs . Cof fin ’s rig ht
arm be hi ndhe r ba ckan d a tt em pt edto ha nd cu ff h er, t eari ng he r ro ta to r cu ff. Heari ng hi s wi fe s crea m , Mr. Co ffi n e nt eredth e g arag e, to fin d h is wife in pa in , wit h Lu tz ’s foo t o n h er ch es t an d h er arm twi st edbe hi ndhe r ba ck
. As M r. Co ffi n re ach edforhi s wi fe’s h an d, Br an dau s ho ve d h im ba ck in to th e ki tc he n a ndth reat en edto sh oo t h im with aTase r. Lut z rel eas edMrs . Cof fin , fo ll owe d B ran dau i nt o t he ki tc he n, an d u rg edhe r to Tase r Mr. Co ffi n. Worri edth at a Tas er co ul d k il l h er h us ba nd , si nc e h e h adun de rg on e a fi ve -way bypas s s ur ge ry , Mrs . Cof fin rus he d i ns id e an d h el d o nt o h er hus ba nd , pl ead in g wi th th e d ep ut ie s n ot

No statute or c ase la

w per mits uni nvited entry

into a home to servea civil injunction. 3 The majority

cites none a

nd Ihave f

ound none. 41to Tase r hi m . Ign or in g t ha t p le a, Bran dau s ho t M r. Co ffi n wi thth e Tas er. Lut z th en

gr ab be d M rs . Cof

fin an d thr ew he r in to th e ad jacen t l aund ry

roo m , cau si ng he r to fal l o n h er h ip . Mrs . Cof fin go t up t o re en te r th e k it ch enas M r. Co ffi n was ret reat in g t owa rd s t he lau nd ry roo m be cau se Bran dau, h av in g a lre ady sh othi m with he r Tas er, was hi tt in g h im in th e st om ach with h er b at on . Stu m bl in g b ack , Mr. Co ffi n fe ll in to Lut z, who in tu rnfel l b ackin to Mrs . Cof fin , cau si ng all th ree t o fa ll in a pi le onto p o f on e an ot he r in th e laun dry roo m . For t he ne xtsev eral m in ut es , Bran dau s to odov er Mr . Cof finan d c on ti nu edto swi ng he r ba to n a t h im , in ad ve rte nt ly stri ki ng Lut z in th e h ead . Mr. Co ffi n, wh o h adhi s h an ds up trying to pr ot ecthi m se lf, e ve ntua ll y m an ag edto sep arat e Bra nd aufro m he r ba to n, atwhi ch po in t Br an dau l eftan d wen t i nt o t he ga rag e. Mr. Co ffi n wal ke d i nt o t he ki tc he n, pl acedth e b at on on th e co un te r, an d s atdo wn o n t he flo or . Lut z th engo t t o h is feetan d s to odov er Mr s. Co ffi n i n the lau nd ry roo m an d, wi th “ fir e in hi s eyes,” p ut hi s g un to he r he adan d c oc ke d i t. Hear in g t he do orop enag ai n, M rs . Cof fin y el le d,

“ he ’s go t a g un ! He’s go t a g un !” An ot he r of fic er en te redth e ro om , sai d “ he y , hey, he y ,” to Lut z, an d t oo k t he gu n fr om Lut z’s ha nd s. Oth er o ffi cers arri ve d o n t he
sc en e an d the Co ffi ns were b ot h a rres te d. 4
After an interna l affa irs investigation, the deputies wer e found to ha ve violated the 4 Sarasota Sheriff’s Department’s g ener al orde r re quiringconfor mity to the law, and w ere suspended without pay

for 160 hour s and orde red to c omplete re medial trainingrelating to sea rch 42II . The Depu tie s’ Wa rra ntl es s E ntry Int o T he Co ffi ns ’ Ga ra ge

Vio la ted T hei r Cle ar ly Es ta bl is hed Co ns tit uti on al Rig hts At “ th e v ery co re” o f th e Fo urth Am en dm en t i s “ th e ri gh t o f a m anto retreat in to hi s o wn h om e an d t he re b e fre e fro m un reas on ab le go ve rn m en t i nt ru si on .” Si lv erm anv. Un it edSta te s, 3 65 U.S. 50 5, 5 11 (19 61 ); s ee Un it edSta te s v . U.S. Dis t. Co urt, 4 07 U.S. 29 7, 3 13 (19 72 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at“ph y si cal en try of the ho m e is th e ch ie f ev il ag ai ns t wh ic h t he word in g o f th e Fo urth Am en dm en t i s d ire ct ed ”). Whi le th e Fo urth Am en dm en t p ro te ct s an in di vi du al ’s reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy from

go ve rn m en t i ntru si on in a va rie ty of se tt in gs , “ [i]n n on e is th e zo ne of pr iv acy m or e cl earl y

de fin edth anwhenbo un de d b y th e u na m bi gu ou s p hysic al di m en si on s o f anin di vi du al ’s ho m e.” Payton v. New Yo rk , 44 5 U.S. 5 73 , 58 9 (1 98 0) . Thu s, “ th e Fo urth Am en dm en t h as dra wn a f irm li ne at t he en tra nc e to th e ho us e,” i d. at59 0, an d “ an y in va si on of the stru ctur e o f th e h om e, ‘by ev ena frac ti on of an i nc h,’ [is ] to o m uc h,” Ky ll o v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 33 U.S. 27 , 37 (20 01 ) (quo ti ng Sil ve rm an , 36 5 U.S. at51 2) (em ph as is ad de d)
. Here, the un di sp ut edfact s d em on st rat e th atth e Co ffi ns ’ at ta ch edga rag e was pa rt o f “ th e u na m

bi gu ou s p hysic al di m en si on s o f [the ir] ho m e,” Payto n, 4 45 U.S. at

and seizure law . On administrative appe al, the alleg ations ag ainst the deputies we re sustaine d, but their pena lty

was re duced to 40 hour s suspension without pay and no re medial training ! 4358 9. The g arag e was no t a s ep arat e b ui ld in g; itwas n ota po rchwith o pe n s id es or 5
a car po rt, l ik ewis e o pe n o n a ll si de s. Ra th er i t was pa rt o f th e fo otpr in t o f th e h ou se , co m pl et el y en cl os edby the co nt ig uo us , ext eri orwall s o f th e h ou se an d c ov eredby th e sa m e ro of

. See Ap pe nd ix (pi ctur e o f th e Co ffi ns ’ ho m e). Lik e th e fro ntdo or , th e au to m at ic ga rag e d oo r co ul d b e cl os edan d l oc ke d t o p rev en t en try by tre sp as se rs . Andbe cau se itco nt ai ne d ado orway lea di ng to th e o th er ro om s, i t was un ne ces sary

to ex itth e h ou se in ord er t o g o fr om th e g arag e to an y

ot he r ro om

or vi ce v ers a. Acco rd in gl y , th ere i s “ no reas on to di st in gu is h [t he Co ffi ns ’ at ta ch ed ] ga rag e, whe re [t he y ] sp en d t im e, work, an d s to re the ir p os se ss io ns , fro m [th ei r] den
or[th ei r] kit ch en , wher e [the y ] sp en d t im e, work, an d s to re the ir p os se ss io ns . Si m pl y pu t, a p ers on ’s gar ag e is as m uc h apa rt o f hi s ca st le as t he res t o f hi s h om e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Oaxa ca, 2 33 F.3d11 54 , 11 57 (9t h C ir. 2 00 0)
. 6 The majority ’s rationale for disre g ardingPay ton is that it“did not involve a g ara g e at 5 all.” Maj. Op. at 17. But this rea soning ignores the “ unambiguous phy sical dimensions of the home” languag e in Pay

ton. The Supreme Court e x pressly held that the police ma

y not, without a war rant, c ross the threshold of a ny room that falls within the “unambiguous phy sical dimensions of the home,” period. 445 U.S. at 589. B ut under the ma jority ’s re asoning , the police may cross the threshold of a

ny room within the unambiguous phy sical dimensions of the home, so longas that ty pe of r oom was not expressly discussed in Pay

ton. Thus, acc ordingto the majority , the police may

enter , for instanc e, a de n, kitchen, or ba sement, despite the f act that it fa lls withi n the unambiguous dimensions of the home. This conclusion simply cannot be square d with Pay ton. None of the fe ature s of a g ara g e that the major ity identifies, Maj. Op. at 23-24, provides 6 any justification for distinguishingan attac hed, enc losed g ara g e fr om the rest of a home. Openingany

door, or e ven a w indow, exposes the interior of a home to public view, just as openinga g ara g e door doe s; and reg ardle ss of the g ara g e door’ s relative size, it, like any other door to a house, c an be c losed to maintain privacy and pre vent others f

rom entering. I

ndeed, the 44In de ed , by fai li ng to reco gn iz e th atanatt ach edgarag e is si m pl y an ot he r ro om in th e h ou se , th e m ajor it y ig no res th e rea li ti es of m od ern da y Am eri can so ci ety . Garag es are n ow co m

m on ly putto a wid e v ari ety of i nt im at e u se s; forin st an ce, Am eri can s ac ro ss th e co un try are us in g a tt ach edga rag es as p ark in g s pa ces , gym s, work s pa ces , lau nd ro m at s, re co rd in g s tu di os , st or ag e fac il it ie s, an d g am e ro om s. In th is res pe ct , an a tt ach ed , enc lo se d g arag e wit hi n t he bu il di ng ’s foo tp rin t i s n o di ffer en t tha n, s ay , a bed ro om us edon ly for s to rag e. Becaus e th es e are as ex is t wit hi n t he un am

bi gu ou s p hysic al di m en si on s o f th e h om e, th e u se to whi ch th ey are pu t (o r no t p ut ) is co ns ti tu ti on al ly irrel ev an t: th e Fo urth Am en dm en t re co gn iz es wit ho utqu al ifi cat io n t ha t, wi th in th os e p hysic al di m en si on s, “ al l d et ai ls are i nt im at e de ta il s.” Kyllo , 53 3 U.S. at37
. Noris itco ns ti tu ti on al ly relev an t wh ethe r a ro om withi n the se di m en si on s happ en s t o b e v is ib le to ou ts id ers . Und er Supr em e Co urt p rece de nt , whi ch th e m ajor it y ig no res , th e fac t t ha t t he Co ffi ns ’ ga rag e d oo r was op enis leg al ly irr el ev an t. In Payto n, p ol ic e o ffi cers saw o ne of t he de fen da nt s s it ti ng in be d th ro ug h h is op enap art m en t d oo r, en te redwitho uta warrant , andarre st edhi m . 44 5

fac t that a g ara g e door ma y be lar g er tha

n a fr ont door and ope ning it may reve al more of

a home’s conte nts cannot be de cisive, bec ause that would mean that havinga larg e front door, or sliding g lass door, or e ven lar g e open w indow that passes some unde fined a nd arbitra ry siz e threshold would strip the entire house of F ourth Amendment prote ction. Surely , no authority supports this necessar

y and absur d implication of the majority ’s position. 45U.S. at 5 78 . Alth ou gh th e o ffi cers ha d p ro babl e cau se to arre stth e d efen da ntfor

arm edrob be ry , th e Co urt re ve rs edth e co nv ic ti on be cau se th e o ffi cers ha d c ro ss ed th e th res ho ldof h is ho m e wit ho uta warra nt . Id. at57 6, 6 03 . Thu s, Pa yto n un am bi gu ou sl y he ldth atth e Fo urth Am en dm en t p ro hi bi ts law en fo rcem en t o ffi ci al s fro m en te rin g t he un am

bi gu ou s p hysic al di m en si on s o f th e h om e wit ho uta warra nt , whe th er i ts do oris op enor s hu t. Id . at 5 89 -9 0. Bec au se th e Co ffi ns ’ at ta ch edga rag e, li ke th e Payton de fen da nt ’s bedro om , ex is te d wi th in th e u na m

bi gu ou s p hysic al di m en si on s o f th e h om e, th e Fo urth Am en dm en t p ro te ct edit , as am at te r of law, ev enth ou gh th e d ep ut ie s co ul d s ee in si de . The d ep ut ie s, t he refo re, v io la te d t he Fo urthAm en dm en t b y cro ss in g i ts th res ho ldan d a rres ti ng Mrs . Cof fin in si de
. Vali da ti ng th is po in t, s ev eral Supr em e Co urt an d El ev en thCir cu itcas es ha ve reco gn iz edth atth e Fo urth Am en dm en t p ro te ct s an att ach edga rag e jus t as itdo es an y ot he r ro om

in th e h ou se . In Ky ll o, t he Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t a t he rm al
im ag in g s can de te ct in g “ th atth e ro of ov er the ga rag e an d asi de wall of [ th e] pe ti ti on er’s h om e were r el at iv el y ho t co m pa redto th e res t o f th e h om e an d
subs ta nt ia ll y

warm er tha n n ei gh bo rin g h om es ” co ns ti tu te d awarran tl es s s earc h o f th e h om e in vi ol at io n o f th e Fo urth Am en dm en t. 5 33 U.S. at 3 0 (e m ph as is ad de d)
. As i ts rel ia nc e o n P ayto n s ho ws, i d. at40 , th e Co urt treat edKy ll o’s at ta ch edga rag e 46as a pa rt o f hi s h om e, an d t hu s cl earl y est ab li sh edth atth e Fo urth Am en dm en t ap pl ie s t o a n a tt ach edga rag e in th e sa m e way itap pl ie s t o a ny oth er ro om in th e ho m e. The m ajor it y

di sr eg ard s Kyllo be cau se itread s t he “ si de wall of p et it io ne r’s ho m e” l an gu ag e as m ean in g t ha t t he un reas on ab le sea rch was c on du ct edin a pa rt o f th e h om e u n- as so ci at edwith t he ga rag e, an d b ecau se th e wor d “ garag e” ap pe ars on ly onc e inth e o pi ni on . Thes e at te m pt s atdi st in gu is hi ng Ky ll o d o n otwiths ta nd
care fu l s cru ti ny. Fi rs t, the m ajor it y

is in co rrec t i n re ad in g t he Supr em e Co urt’s re fere nc e to a

“ si de wall ” to m ean th atth e h otsp otrev eal edby the th erm al im ag in g s canwas so m e p artof Kyllo ’s ho m e o th er tha n h is ga rag e. The s can in di cat edth atKy ll o

“ ha d b een us in g h al id e li gh ts to gro w m ari juan a in hi s h ou se ,” 53 3 U.S. at30 ; an d si nc e th e o nl y

roo m m en ti on edas b ei ng rel at iv el y ho t was th e g arag e, an d a gr owi ng op erat io n wi th lam ps an d p la nt s o bv io us ly cann otbe lo cat edwithi n awall , th e o nl y lo gi cal way

to readth e o pi ni on is th atth e sc anrev eal edth atKy ll o h adbe en gr owi ng m ari

juan a in hi s g arag e. As s uc h, re gard le ss of wh ethe r th e sc anals o ob ta in edev id en ce fr om

ot he r pa rts of Kyllo ’s ho m e, th e Co urt h adto co ns id er the la wfu ln es s o f th e sc anof t he ga rag e, be cau se th atis wher e th e ev id en ce atis su e was ob ta in ed , andth e Co urt’s h ol di ng —t ha t the th erm al im ag in g s can was a n 47un co ns ti tu ti on al sea rchbe cau se itob ta in edev id en ce re ga rd in g the in te rio r of th e ho m e—wa s cl earl y

an d n eces sa ril y

pre m is edon th e le ga l co nc lu si on th atth e g arag e was en ti tl edto th e p ro te ct io ns acco rd edth e h om e b y th e Fo urth Am en dm en t. See id . at 4 0. In de ed , th e fac t t ha t t he Supr em e Co urt, ap pl y in g P ayto n, an al y zedth e se arch of t he ga rag e n o d iff eren tl y th anth e se arch of t he res t o f th e h ou se , and ul ti m at el y

rul edth atth e ev id en ce fr om th e g arag e was un la wfu ll y ob ta in ed , de m on st rat es th atitco ns id eredth e g arag e a p artof t he ho m e. Mo reo ve r, th e fac t t ha t t he word“ ga rag e” ap pe ars on ly onc e in Ky ll o a ctua ll y supp orts th e p ro po si ti on th ata garag e m us t b e co ns id ereda pa rt o f th e h om e fo r Fo urthAm en dm en t p ur

po se s. Itsh ows th atth ere was no ne edforso m e el ab or at e an al y si s equa ti ng a ga rag e with aho m e. Thu s, t he m ajor it y ha s n o v al idba si s fo r di sr eg ard in g Kyllo , andforco nc lu di ng th atPayto n’s b rig ht -li ne rul e p ro hi bi ti ng warra nt le ss en try int o t he ho m e d oe s n otap pl y he re. Ano th er ca se , squa rel y

on -p oi nt , is th e fo rm er Fi fth Cir cu it ’s dec is io n i n Kau z v. Un it edSta te s, 9 5 F .2d47 3 (5 th Cir . 19 38 ). In t ha t ca se , th e d efen da ntm ov edto 7
supp res s t es ti m on y

fro m off ic ers who en te redan d s earc he d t he de fen da nt ’s gar ag e wit ho uta warra nt . Id. at47 3- 74 . Like th e Co ffi ns ’ garag e, th e g arag e in Kauz was
In Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), the 7 Eleventh Circuit adopte d as bindingprec edent a ll Fifth Circuit decisions hande d down prior to the close of

business on September 30, 1981. 48pa rt o f th e sa m e b ui ld in g t ha t h ou se d t he de fen da nt ’s li vi ng qu art ers , hada do or

le ad in g t o t he li vi ng qu art ers , andha d asl id in g d oo r th atop en edon to th e st reet . Id. at47 3. When th e o ffi cers arri ve d a t t he bu il di ng , th e g arag e’s sl id in g d oo r “ was op enab ou t t hr ee fe et .” Id . at 4 74 . As th e d ep ut ie s d idhe re, o ne of t he off ic ers en te redth e o pe n g arag e an d arres te d aco -d efen da nt . Id. So m eo ne th enclo se d t he sl id in g d oo r, jus t as Mrs . Cof fin di d. Id . Non ethe le ss , a se co ndoff ic er fo rcedhi s way in to th e g arag e, th ro ug h t he de fen da nt ’s li vi ng qu art ers , andon ce i ns id e,

“ de te ct edth e smell o f m oo ns hi ne whi sky , whi ch [th e o ffi cer] th ou gh t ca m e fro m rece nt ly bro ke n ju gs .” Id . Hol di ng th atth e o ffi cers ’ se arch of t he de fen da nt ’s pr em is es vi ol at edhe r co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s, the form er Fi fth Cir cu itco nc lu de d t ha t

“ th e te st im on y

of t he off

ic ers as t o wh atth ey

saw i n t he ga rag e was . . . in ad m is si bl e.” Id . (em

ph as is ad de d) . Sig ni fic an tl y , th e Co urt d idno t re st ric t i ts ru li ng to th e te st im on y

of t he off

ic er wh o fo rcedhi s way int o t he garag e th ro ug h t he de fen da nt ’s li vi ng qu art ers , bu t al so he ldth atth e o ffi cer wh o e nt eredth e at ta ch ed ga rag e whe n t he do orwas o pe n v io la te d t he de fen dant ’s con st itut io na l ri gh ts . Bec au se th e d ep ut ie s d idth e sa m e th in g h ere, Kau z co ntro ls th is cas e. 8 The majority

speculates that the interior door connec ting the r esidenc e to the g ara g e 8 might not have been visible fr om the street. B ut it would be illogical to strip a g ara g e of F ourth Amendment prote ction when of fice rs ca n see suc h a door, be cause the exist ence of the door only supports the conc lusion that an attache d, enclose d g ara g e is indistinguishable from any other room in the home also conta ining suc h a door. Under the majority ’s re asoning , if offic ers c an see a door c onnectinga bedr oom, den, or kitche n to the rest of the home, they may enter the room to 49In de ed , eve n wh enitis un cl ear wh ethe r a g arag e is att ach edor n ot , th e cas e

la w is un am

bi gu ou s t ha t a warran tl es s en try int o aga rag e is co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr oh ib it ed . Firs t, the re i s t he Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si onin Tay lo r v. Un it edSta te s, 28 6 U.S. 1 (19 32 ). In t ha t ca se , th e Co urt h el d t ha t Pr oh ib it io n a ge nt s v io la te d t he Fo urthAm en dm en t wh enth ey sei zedli qu orfro m

a “ garag e ad

jacen t t o [a ]
res id en ce” wi th ou t a warran t. Id . at 3 . The g arag e was “ a small m et al bu il di ng ” th at was “ on th e co rn er o f a ci ty lotan d a djac en t t o t he dwel li ng in whi ch pe ti ti on er Tay lo r res id ed .” Id . at 5 . The Co urt h el d t ha t t he ga rag e was pro te ct edby the Fo urthAm en dm en t as “pa rt[ ] of th e sa m e p rem is es [as th e res id en ce].” Id. at5 (em ph as is ad de d)
. 9 Lik ewis e, inUni te d S ta te s v . Sok ol ow, 4 50 F.2d32 4, 3 25 -2 6 (5 th Cir . 19 71 ), th e fo rm er Fi fth Cir cu itsp eci fic al ly hel d, wi th ou t qua li fic at io n, t ha t an off ic er’s

acc ess other pa

rts of the home. N othing in log ic or a uthority supports this conclusion. L ikewise, c ontrary

to the majority ’s asser

tion, Kauz cannot be distinguished on the g round that the g ara g e in that ca se wa s “only” open thr ee f eet. Ma j. Op. at 20. The thre e-f

oot openingwas indisputably larg e enough for the of

fice rs in Kauz to enter the g ara g e and se e inside, which is the critical fac t acc ordingto the majority
. Finally , the fa ct that the Court foc used more on the office r who e ntere d the def endant’ s living quar

ters does not c hang e the f act that the Court’ s holding wa s that the offic er who enter ed the g ara g e dire ctly

through the open door

also violated the F ourth Amendment. TheCourt’s holding, not the struc ture of its opinion, is all that matters. The majority

attempts to disti nguish Taylor on the ground that the g ara g e in that ca se 9 was c losed. That distinction, however , is irreleva nt under Pay

ton, as discussed above , and also ignor es the undisputed fa ct that Mrs. Coffin had attempted to close her g ara g e door. Just as the office rs in Taylor forc ed their w ay into the ga

rag e by brea king a lock, the deputies he re f

orce d their wa y into the Coffins’ g ara g e by trig g ering

an ele ctronic se nsor when thedoor wa s closing. 50warra nt le ss en tra nc e in to th e d efen da nt ’s gar ag e v io la te d the Fo urth Am en dm en t.

Inth atcas e, a p ol ic e o ffi cer o bs erv edairco nd it io ni ng un it s i ns id e o f th e de fen da nt ’s gar ag e th athe su sp ect edwere s to le n. Id . at 3 25 . The co nt en ts of t he ga rag e, li ke th os e o f th e Co ffi ns ’ ga rag e, were v is ib le fro m th e o ut si de . Id. Lik e th e de pu ti es di d i n t hi s ca se , th e o ffi cer e nt eredth e g arag e wit ho uta warra nt . Id. Thi s Co urt h el d t ha t t he off

ic er co ul d n oten te r th e d efen da nt ’s gar ag e wit ho uta warra nt an d s up pr es se d the ev id en ce o bt ai ne d fr om th e u nc on st itut io na l en try. Id. at 3 26
. Thu s, the cas e st an ds forth e p ro po si ti on th atth e Fo urthAm en dm en t p ro hi bi ts en try in to a res id en ti al ga rag e, reg ard le ss of wh ethe r of fic ers co ul d s ee i ns id e it
. 1 0 The m ajor it y

ass ert s t ha t the au th or it y di sc us se d abo ve do es no t co nt ro l t hi s cas e b ecau se a “ nu m

be r of co m pe ti ng do ctrin es ” m

us t al so be co ns id ered , andli st s (1 ) “ th e Dun n c urti la ge fact oran al y si s,” a nd(2) “ area s i m pl ie dl y op ento publ ic
us e.” Ma j. Op. at 3 0- 31 . Like Cin de rel la ’s st ep -s is te rs , th e m ajor it y att em pt s t o sh oe ho rnth es e in ap pl ic ab le “ do ctrin es ” fo rcef ul ly int o t hi s ca se , des pi te th e cl ear m is fit
.The fir stdo ctrin e th e m ajor it y m en ti on s— cu rti la ge —i s wh ol ly inapp li cab le
As with Kauz, it is i rre levant whe ther the g ara g e in Sokolow might have lacke d a 1 0 visible passag ewa

y to another door

of the home. N or it releva nt under Pay

ton whether

the g ara g e door wa s open or c losed. Whil e the major ity speculates about these f

acts in an attempt to distinguish Sokolow, the holding of the case rema ins clear that enter ing a

residential g ara g e without a war

rant is constitutionally

impermissible.

51be cau se in he ren t i n t he ve ry de fin it io n o f cu rti la ge is th atitap pl ie s o nl y to lan d
ou ts id e, orst ru ctur es ex is ti ng ap artfro m , th e actua l dwell in g. Th e p ur po se of
cu rti la ge an al y si s i s t o d et erm in e whe th er the areaor s tru ctur es ou ts id e th e res id en ce s ho ul d b e g iv enth e sa m e Fo urth Am en dm en t p ro te ct io n a cco rd edth e res id en ce, n otwhet he r certa in roo m s wi th in th e fo urwall s o f th e res id en ti al st ru ctur e en

joy th e sa m e Fo urth Am en dm en t p ro te ct io n a s o th er ro om s wi th in th at st ru ctur e. See Un it edSta te s v . Dun n, 4 80 U.S. 29 4, 3 00 -0 3 (1 98 7) (an al y zi ng whe th er ar eas su rro un di ng a ba rnwere cu rti la ge ). “ The cu rti la ge co nc ep t o rig in at ed atco m m on law t o e xt en d t o t he areaimm ed ia te ly surro un di ng a dwe ll in g h ou se th e sa m e p ro te ct io n u nd er the law o f bu rg la ry as wa s af fo rd edth e h ou se it se lf.” Dun n, 48 0 U.S. at30 0 (e m

ph as is ad de d) . As fu rth er ex pl ai ne d i n Du nn : Inde fin in g t he term s “ m an si on or d well in g h ou se ,” Bl ack st on e wro te th at“ no di st an t b arn , wareh ou se , or the li ke are u nd er the same pr iv il eg es , no r lo ok edup on as am an ’s cas tl e o f de fen ce . . . .” 4 W. Bl ack st on e, Co m

m en ta rie s 2 25 . Bla ck st on e o bs erv ed , ho wev er, tha t “ if th e b arn , st ab le , or war eh ou se , be p arce l o f th e m an si on -h ou se , and wit hi n t he same comm on fen ce, tho ug h n otun de r th e sa m e ro of or co nt ig uo us , a bu rg la ry

m ay be co m m it te d t he rei n; forth e cap it al ho us e pr ot ect s an d p riv il eg es all it s b ran ch es an d app urte na nc es , if wi th in th e cu rti la ge or h om es ta ll .” Ib id
. Id . at 3 00 n.3 (em

ph as is ad de d) . Thu s, a d well in g was de fin edat c omm on law as th e h om e an d a ll area s “ un de r th e sa m e ro of or c on ti ng uo us ,” li ke th e Co ffi ns ’

52ga rag e, whi le cu rti la ge was d efi ne d a s t he stru ctur es “ wit hi n t he same com m on fen ce.” There is no t a s in gl e Supr em e Co urt, Ele ve nt h C irc ui t, o r Fl or id a Supr em e

1 1 Co urt ca se ap pl y in g t he cu rti la ge do ctrin e to a ro om un de r th e sa m e ro of

an d wi th in th e co nt ig uo us wall s o f th e h ou se . Ind eed , do in g s o wo ul d b e in co ns is te ntwith Payton ’s bri gh t-l in e an d u na m bi gu ou s ru le th atth e “ th res ho ld[of a ho m e] m ay

no t reas on ab ly be cro ss edwitho uta warrant .” 44 5 U.S. at59 0. Ev enin Dun n, t he Supr em e Co urt as su m edth atth e actua l “ ba rnen joy edFo urth Am en dm en t p ro te ct io n an d c ou ldno t b e en te redan d i ts co nt en ts sei zedwitho uta warrant .” 48 0 U.S. at30 3. Inho ld in g t ha t t he off

ic ers di d n otvi ol at e th e Fo urth Am en dm en t b y pe eri ng in to th e b arn fro m

anop enfie ld , item

ph as iz edth at“ th e o ffi cers ne ve r en te redth e b arn , no r di d t he y

en te r an y ot he r st ru ctur e o n re sp on de nt ’s pre m is es .” Id . at 3 04 . Thu s, Dun n p ro vi de s n o s up po rt f orth e p ro po si ti on th atpo li ce m ay en te r, as op po se d t o pe er i ns id e, a res id en ti al st ru ctur e whe n i ts do oris op en . As t o t he “ co m

pe ti ng do ctrin e” o f “ area s i m pl ie dl y op ento publ ic us e,” the

I g noringthis well-established under standingof the c urtilag e doctrine, the majority 1 1 asser ts that the fac t that the Coffins’ attac hed g ara g e wa s open provides a rea son to apply

the curtilag e doctrine her e. B ut this reasoningis circular . That the g ara g e wa s open would have been a rele vant consider ation only if the cur tilage doctrine a

pplied, see D unn, 480 U.S. at 301, but it begs the question to also use that fac t as rea son to decide that the curtilag e doctrine is applicable to beg in with; in ot her w ords, the fa ct that an a rea is observable to people passingby is one of the f

our fa ctors identified in Dunn f or distinguishingbetwee n an open f ield and curtilag e, so it is circular

to simul taneously

rely on that fac t to just ify

applying the four- fac tor test in the first place
. 53m ajor it y

rel ie s upo n g en eral st at em en ts fro m a tr eat is e an d s ev eral cas es fro m in te rm ed ia te ap pe ll at e co urts in vo lv in g fa ct s s o fa r rem ov edfro m th os e o f th is cas e th atth ey have no rel ev an ce h ere. Th ey ad dr es s ar eas ou ts id e th e fo urwall s o f a ho m e, su ch as o pe n wal kwa y s an d d riv eways lea di ng up to th e h om e, po rch es with
no en cl os edwall s o ut si de th e h ou se , andcarp orts with n o wal ls at a ll . Maj. Op. at 18 -2 0 (c it in g 1 W ayne R. LaFav e, Sear ch an d S ei zu re: A Treati se on th e Fo urth Am en dm en t § 2.3 (f) (4 th ed . 20 04 ) (wal kwa y s, driv eways, po rch es ), Sta te v. Detl efs on , 33 5 S o. 2 d 3 71 , 37 2 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 19 76 ) (fro ntpo rch th atwas o pe n an d v is ib le to pe op le onth e st reet ), an d S ta te v. Du hart, 8 10 So . 2d97 2, 9 73 -7 4 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 20 02 ) (ca rp ort th atwas o pe n a ndexpo se d t o p ub li c v ie w, ex pr es sl y di st in gu is he d fr om

a ga rag e, an d l ik en edto a fro ntpo rch )). Non e o f 1 2 th es e tr eat is es or c as es ad dr es s an att ach ed , enc lo se d g arag e th atis withi n t he bu il di ng ’s foo tp rin t, an d u nd er the same roo f as th e h ou se . Suc h agarag e is no th in g li ke a walkway , dri ve way , fro ntpo rch , or c arp ort, al l o f whi ch are o ut si de th e h ou se an d l ackwall s. The majority

also cites this Court’s decision United States v. Tay lor, 458 F.3d 1201, 1 2 1204 (11th Cir. 2006), Maj. Op. at 20, which addr essed the pe rmissibil ity of appr oachinga residenc e and knoc king on the front door, not c rossingthe threshold of a structure and perf orminga sea

rch or seizure. This “‘knoc k and talk’ e x ception to the F ourth Amendment’s require ment for a

war rant,” 458 F.3d a

t 1205, would only

apply to Deputy

L utz’s ini tial approa ch to the Coffins’ fr ont door, not the deputies’ subse quent entry into the ga

rag e and se izure of Mrs. Coffin. 54Perh ap s t he m ajor it y foc us es on th is so -cal le d d oc tri ne of “ area s i m pl ie dl y op ento publ ic us e” b ecau se itbe li ev es th atth e “ do ctrin e” s om eh ow s up po rts it s cen tra l p rem is e th atpe op le reas on ab ly exp ectde li ve rym ento en te r th ei r at ta ch ed , en cl os edga rag es an d tha t d el iv erym enha ve a ri gh t t o d o s o. Th is pre m is e, ho wev er, i s u nr eal is ti c an d u nwa rran te d. I b el ie ve th atm os t Am eri can s d o n ot ex pe ct , andwou ldno t p erm it , st ran ge rs , in cl ud in g d el iv erym en , to en te r an d ro am th ro ug h t he ir a tt ach ed , enc lo se d g arag es . The m ajor it y cit es no au th or ity

for it s as se rti on th atde li ve rym enha ve th e ri gh t t o e nt er an att ach ed , enc lo se d g arag e wit ho utco ns en t. In de ed , itis un la wfu l i n F lo rid a to en te r a res id en ti al ga rag e wit ho utth e o wne r’s pe rm is si on . G.D. v. St at e, 55 7 S o.2 d 1 23 , 12 4 (F la . Dis t. Ct
. App .19 90 ) (h ol di ng th atth ere “ was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt t he ad jud ic at io n fo r tr es pa ss to th e u no ccupi eddwel li ng in th e g arag e” wh ende fen da nten te redth e ga rag e o f a v acan t h ou se witho utth e o wne r’s pe rm is si on ). Inho ld in g t ha t t he se “ co m pe ti ng do ctrin es ” ap pl y , th e m ajor it y ig no res Payton ’s bri gh t-l in e ru le pro hi bi ti ng warran tl es s en try int o t he ho m e an d e ffec ti ve ly
rem ov es th e Supr em e Co urt’s p res um pt io n t ha t i nd iv idua ls ha ve a pr ot ect ed
ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy in the ir h om es . Und er the m ajor ity ’s op in io n, i ns te adof t he pr es um pt io n o f pr iv acy in t he ho m e, in di vi du al s wi ll be ar the bu rd enof s ho win g th atth ey have a reas on ab le expe ct at io n o f pr iv acy in ea ch sep arat e ro om inth ei r 55ho m e, requi rin g the m to ke ep ev ery do orsh utan d e ve ry cu rta indra wn i n o rd er t o se cu re the pro te ct io ns of t he Fo urth Am en dm en t wi th in th ei r ho m es . This rul in g st rik es at “ th e v ery co re” o f th e Fo urth Am en dm en t. Si lv erm an , 36 5 U.S. at51 1.

II I. The La w of Q ua li fie d Imm uni ty Noton ly doe s t he m ajor it y ero de th e p ro te ct io ns of t he Fo urth Am en dm en t, bu t, i n h ol di ng th atth e Co ffi ns ’ co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s wer e n otcle arl y est ab li sh ed , it al so di st orts th e la w of qua li fie d i m m un it y in sev eral way s. Fi rs t, i n re lying up on di ss en ts , eve n fr om

ot he r ci rcu it s, as well as o pi ni on s fr om in te rm ed ia te st at e ap pe ll at e co urts , Maj. Op. at23 , 29 -3 0, t he m ajor it y ap pe ars to ab ro ga te , ina on esi de d way, ourwell -es tabl is he d ru le th atli m it s t he rel ev an t u ni ve rs e o f cas es for qu al ifi edimm

un it y pu rp os es to th os e o f th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt, Ele ve nt h Ci rcu it , andhi gh es t co urt o f th e p ert in en t s ta te . Mars h v . But le r Cn ty., 26 8 F .3d 10 14 , 10 32 n.1 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) (enba nc ). Whi le th e m ajor it y ap pe ars to st il l requi re § 19 83 pl ai nt iff

s t o fo ll ow o urpri orrul e to pro ve th atth ei r ri gh ts were cl earl y est ab li sh ed , itno w perm it s d efen da nt s t o re ly on t he op in io ns of a ny j ur is t i n an y juri sd ic ti on to pro ve th atth e la w was n otcle arl y est ab li sh ed . See Ma

j. Op. at 28 n.1 2 (“ [O]pin io ns fro m ot he r co urts can su gg es t t ha t re as on ab le juri st s wo ul d n ot kn ow t ha t ce rta in factua l s itua ti on s ri se to th e le ve l o f co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns , and th eref or e rea so nabl e o ffi cers wou ldno t ei th er.”) ; i d. at31 (rel y in g o n “ in di cat io ns 56fro m

juri st s i n n on -b in di ng cas es ” an d i nt erm ed ia te st at e ap pe ll at e co urt d eci si on s

“ of whi ch th e d ep ut ie s m ay

well ha ve be enaware” to co nc lu de th atth e Co ffi ns ’ rig ht s wer e n otcle arl y

est ab li sh ed ). Thi s d oubl e st an da rdm ak es no sen se . The ba si s fo r res tri ct in g o urfoc us to bi nd in g c as e la w is th at“ [w]e do no t ex pe ctpubl ic of fic ia ls to so rt o utth e la w of e ve ry juri sd ic ti on in th e co un try.” Mars h, 2 68 F.3dat 10 32 n.1 0. No w, app aren tl y , we ass um e th atpubl ic off ic ia ls wil l s earc h t hr ou gh th e la w of e ve ry

juri sd ic ti on , andon ly pay att en ti on to th os e cas es th atsupp ort t he po si ti onth ey

wantto tak e—e ve n i f it ’s fro m a di ss en t! 1 3 The m ajor it y

als o d is to rts qu al ifi edimm un it y law b y de cl ari ng th atitwil l b e ex ceed in gl y

“ rare ” fo r a g en eral co ns ti tu ti on al rul e to ap pl y with o bv io us cla rit y

to a de fen da nt ’s con du ctin § 1 98 3 c as es all eg in g aFo urth Am en dm en t v io la ti on . Maj. Op. at27 -2 8. Th e d eci si on s t he m ajor it y cit es si m pl y do no t s ay

th at . Ins te ad , th e de ci si on s s ta ndforth e u nr em ark ab le pro po si ti on th atth e que st io n o f whe th er a pa rti cu la r ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy is rea so nabl e o fte n i s fa ctin te ns iv e. Bu t h ere, t he Co ffi ns ’ cl ai m s d o n otrequi re a fa ct -in te ns iv e an al y si s. Payto n’s b rig ht -li ne rul e
Contrary to the majority ’s asser

tion, Denno v. Sch. B d. of Volusia, Cnty ., Fla., 218 F .3d 1 3 1267 (11th Cir. 2000), ca

nnot support its reliance on dissents a nd non-bindingprec edents, beca use De nno pre- dates our e n banc de cision in Marsh, 268 F.3d at 1032 n.10, which re stricted our foc us to “dec isions of the U.S. Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appe als for the Eleventh Circuit, and the highe st court of the pe rtinent state” when dete rmining whether a right was c lear ly

established. 57pr oh ib it in g warran tl es s en try int o t he ho m e ap pl ie s wi th ob vi ou s cl ari ty to t he

de pu ti es ’ warra nt le ss en try int o t he Co ffi ns ’ ho m e. Fi na ll y , th e m ajor it y ’s hyper-t ech ni cal an d c ou nt erfa ctua l re ad in g o f Ky ll o, Kau z, So ko lo w, andTay lo r co nt rav en es th e st an da rdsetforth in Hop e v . Pel zer, 53 6 U.S. 7 30 (20 02 ), fo r de te rm in in g wh ethe r bi nd in g p rece de nt s cl earl y es tabl is he d aco ns ti tu ti on al rig ht . In Ho pe , th e Supr em e Co urt ch as ti se d t hi s co urt fo r im po si ng anun du ly rigi d g lo ss on th e cl earl y est ab li sh edpro ng of t he qu al ifi ed imm un it y st an dard . Hol lo m anex rel . Hol lo m anv. Harl an d, 3 70 F.3d12 52 , 12 77 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) (“ Thi s ci rcu itwas re cen tl y ch as ti se d b y

th e Supr em e Co urt fo r ta ki ng anun warra nt ed ly narro w vi ew of th e ci rcu m st an ces in whi ch publ ic off ic ia ls
can be he ldres po ns ib le forth ei r co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns .”). Ove rru li ng th is Co urt’s s ta nd ard , whi ch ha d re qu ire d t ha t the fact s o f pr ev io us cas es be m at eri al ly si m il ar t o t he fact s o f th e cas e b efo re the Co urt, the Supr em e Co urt h el d tha t a r ig ht is cle arl y est ab li sh edwhen , “ de sp it e n ot ab le factua l d is ti nc ti on s b etween th e pr eced en ts rel ie d o n a ndth e cas es th enbe fo re the Co urt . . . th e p rio r de ci si on s g av e reas on ab le warn in g t ha t the co nduc t t he n a t i ss ue vi ol at edco ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s.” Hop e, 53 6 U.S. at74 0 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . App lying th e p ro pe r st an da rd , th e Supr em e Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t t wo o f ou r pr io r pr eced en ts ga ve th e Hop e d efen da nt s fa ir wa rn in g t ha t h an dc uf fin g p ris on ers to a hi tc hi ng po stforsev en 58ho ur s was co ns ti tu ti on al ly im pe rm is si bl e, de sp it e th e fac t tha t o ne cas e ad dr es se d
se ve ral form s o f pu ni sh m en t, i nc lu di ng ha nd cu ffi ng in m at es to cel ls or f en ces (as op po se d t o h it ch in g p os ts ) fo r pr ol on ge d p eri od s o f ti m e, an d t he ot he r cas e’s br oa d pr em is e (as op po se d t o i ts sp eci fic ho ld in g) was t ha t, i n g en eral , ph y si cal ly abu si ng a p ris on er fo r pa stm is co nduc t wo ul d v io la te th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. Id . at 7 42 -4 4. Thi s C ou rt’s c on tra ry

co nc lu si on “ ex po se [d ] th e d an ge r of a ri gi d, o ve rrel ia nc e o n factua l s im il ari ty.” Id. at74 2. Inth is cas e, th e ap pl ic ab le bi nd in g p rece de nt s ar e ev enm or e fac tu al ly sim il ar to th e d ep ut ie s’ con du ctth anth e p rece de nt s i n Ho pe were t o t he pri so n o ffi ci al s’
co nduc t, an d t hu s g av e th e d ep ut ie s fa ir warn in g t ha t t he ir c on du ctvi ol at edth e Co ffi ns ’ co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. Th e g arag e, li ke ev ery ot he r ro om in th e Co ffi ns ’ ho m e, was withi n t he co nf in es of t he ho m e, an d P ayto n s ay s t ha t o ffi cers can no t p ut on e fo otin to th e co nf

in es of aho m e wit ho uta warrant ; Ky ll o h el d t ha t a warran tl es s se arch of aga rag e v io la te s t he Fo urth Am en dm en t; an d Kau z, So ko lo w, andTay lo r he ldth aten te rin g aga rag e wit ho uta warra ntvi ol at es th e Fo urth Am en dm en t. The re i s n ot hi ng un cl ear o r co nf us in g abo utth e st rai gh tfo rwardho ld in gs of t he se cas es . The m ajor it y

ig no res th e la ng ua ge an d h ol di ng s o f th es e cas es , andsei zes up on irr el ev an t, h y

po th et ic al fact s an d l eg al th eo rie s t ha t wer e n ei th er m en ti on ed
no r co ns id eredin an y

of t he se cas es to say tha t the y di d n otpro vi de fai r no ti ce t ha t 59en te rin g a n a tt ach ed , enc lo se d g arag e wit ho uta warra ntvi ol at es th e Fo urth

Am en dm en t. Sim

pl y pu t, the m ajor it y

do es ex act ly wha t t he Supr em e Co urt 1 4 ch as ti se d thi s C ou rt f

ordo in g i n Ho pe . Read in g t he se cas es on th ei r own , ord in ary pe op le , andesp eci al ly reaso nabl e o ffi cers , wou ldun de rs tandcle arl y th atan at ta ch ed , enc lo se d g arag e is pro te ct edby the Fo urth Am en dm en t.

As noted, the majority

focuse s on the extent to which the g ara g e in Kauz was ope n, and 1 4 speculates that the g ara g e might have lac ked a visible pa ssag ewa y to the rest of the home, eve n though the decision neve r say s so; it l ikewise spec ulates that the g ara g e in Sokolow might have been c losed and a lso lacked a visible passag ewa

y to the house, eve n though, a g ain, the dec ision never say s so; it faults Kyllo for mentioning the word “ g ara g e” only once a nd incorre ctly assumes that the re levant sea rch w as conduc ted in a par t of the house se parate from the g ara g e; and it disreg ards Ta

ylor bec ause the g ara g e in that ca se wa s closed, eve n though the decision does not expressly

rely on the fa ct that the door w as closed. 60APPENDIX

The Coffins’ H ome 1 5

Dist. Ct. Docket Entry

44-5 (Ex. D-Photogr aph of Coff ins’ Home). 1 5 61HULL, Ci rcu itJu dg e, co nc urrin g i n p artan d d is se nt in g i n p art(joi ne d b y Ju dg e Marti n) : 1 Inm y vi ew th is is anop en -an d- sh utcas e, no t an“ op enga rag e” ca se . Fi rs t, I ag ree wi th Ju dg e Barke tt ’s des cri pt io n o f th es e k ey , un di sp ut edfact s: [T]he Co ffi ns ’ at ta ch ed ga rag e was pa rt of “ th e un am bi gu ou s ph y si cal di m en si on s of [th ei r] ho m e,”
. . . . The ga rag e was no t a se pa rat e bu il di ng ; it was no t a po rch wit h op en si de s or a carp ort, li ke wis e op en on al l s i d e s . Rat he r it was pa rt of th e fo otpr in t of th e ho us e, co mp l e t e l y e n cl os ed by the co nt ig uo us , ex te rio r wall s of th e ho us e an d co ve red by th e sa m e ro of
. See App en di x (p ic tu re of th e Co ffi ns ’ ho m e). Lik e th e fro nt do or , th e au to m at ic garag e do or co ul d be cl os ed an d lo ck ed to pr ev en t en try b y tre sp as se rs . And be cau se i t c o n t a i ne d a do orway le ad in g to th e ot he r ro om s, it was un ne ces sa ry to ex it th e ho us e in or de r to go fro m

th e g arag e to an y

ot he r ro om

or v ic e v ers a. B ark ett, J., co nc urrin g in pa rt an d di ss en ti ng in part, at 44 (s eco nd al te rat io n i n or ig in al ). Seco nd , I reco gn iz e th atth e m ajor it y foc us es on a di ffi cu ltop en -d oo r qu es ti on . Howev er, we n eedno t re so lv e th e o pe n- do oris su e b ecau se , as I
un de rs ta ndth e u nd is pu te d fa ct s, Pl ai nt iff Mrs . Cof fin ha d a lre ady

refu se d t he Defen da nt s en try at h er fro ntdo or , hadpu sh edth e au to m at ic bu tt on to clo se he r ga rag e d oo r, an d h er g arag e d oo r was clo si ng be fo re Defe nd an t Dep ut y Bran dau’s

My concur renc e with the majority

is lim ited to its conclusion that the deputies violated 1 the Coffins’ c onstitut ional rights. 62en try.Mrs . Cof fin ha d c om

pl et edwhatsh e n eed edto do to clo se he r do or . Ind eed , th e d ep ut ie s wer e st an di ng ab ou t fi ve feetfro m th e g arag e whe n M rs . Cof fin pu sh ed th e au to m at ic bu tt on to sh uthe r ga rag e d oo r. Seei ng th atth e g arag e d oo r was cl os in g, Def

en da ntBran dau s te pp edin to th e g arag e, br eak in g t he ele ctro ni c-eye sa fet y be am forth e d oo r an d c au si ng th e g arag e d oo r to retreatto it s o pe n p os it io n. Mrs . Cof fin ha d e ffec ti ve ly clo se d h er g arag e d oo r an d Def en dantDepu ty Brand au op en editba ckup by break in g t he ele ctro ni c b eam an d s to pp in g i ts clo si ng . Defen da ntDepu ty L ut z wit ne ss edth is act . Bran dau e nt eredth e g arag e; Lut z fo ll owe d. Insh ort, the de pu ti es vi ol at edMrs . Cof fin ’s Fou rth Am en dm en t ri gh ts when th ey en te redhe r cl os edga rag e d oo r, an d t he Fo urth Am en dm en t l aw was cle arl y es tabl is he d t ha t t he de pu ti es co ul d n oten te r Mrs . Cof fin ’s ho m e aft er s he clo se d t he do or . See Vin ey ardv. Wils on , 31 1 F .3d13 40 , 13 55 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (co ns id eri ng th e p la in ti ff’s v ers io n o f th e ev en ts an d c on cl ud in g t he “ ob vi ou s cl ari ty” sta nd ard , al th ou gh di ffi cu ltto m eet , was s at is fie d i n re la ti onto th e cl earl y est ab li sh edlaw is su e).

63MARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg e, co nc urrin g i n p artan d d is se nt in g i n p art(joi ne d b y Ch ie f Ju dg e Dub in a): 1 I fu ll y co nc ur in Ju dg e Barke tt ’s di ss en ti ng op in io n b ecau se th e Fo urth Am en dm en t ri gh ts th e Dep ut ie s v io la te d h ere wer e cl earl y est ab li sh ed . I writ e se pa rat el y

on ly to em

ph as iz e th atjus t as Mr. an d M rs . Cof fin ha ve be ende ni ed rel ie f fo r th is in tru si on in to th ei r ho m e, th e “ to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces ” te st es tabl is he d i n t he m ajor it y op in io n d oe s n ot hi ng to pro te ctpe op le in th ei r ho m es fro m si m il ar i nt ru si on s i n t he futur e. Sp eci fic al ly, th e in de fin it e st an da rd
es tabl is he d b y

th e co urt t od ay

reduc es to on e th e cl earl y est ab li sh edcir cu m st an ces un de r whi ch a pe rs on can pre ve ntlaw en fo rcem en t fr om en te rin g h er g arag e, at ta ch edto he r ho m e, ev enwher e th e o ffi cer h as no warran t, an d wh ere t he ho m eo wne r act iv el y

pro te st s t he en try. The “ firm li ne ” th atth e Fo urth Am en dm en t draws at the en tra nc e o f th e h ou se

“ m us t b e n oton ly firm

bu t al so bri gh t.” Ky ll o v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 33 U.S. 27 , 40 , 12 1 S . Ct. 2 03 8, 2 04 6 (2 00 1) . Befo re t od ay , ou r bi nd in g p rece de nt , whi ch
es tabl is he d t ha t an att ach edga rag e is tre at edas p artof the “ ho us e” u nd er the Fo urth Am en dm en t, drew a fi rm an d b rig htli ne . Butrathe r th anap pl y Ky ll o’s b rig htli ne

Iconcur in the majority ’s holding that Mr. and Mrs. Coffin’ s Fourth Ame ndment rights 1 wer e violated. 64ru le , th e m ajor it y no w set s a s ta nd ardth atrel ie s o n anu m be r of co nt ex t-s pe ci fic an d ci rcu m st an ce-d ep en de ntfact or s. In do in g s o, t hi s co urt h as st rip pe d t he Co ffi ns of th e v ery rig ht s t ha t t he Fo urth Am en dm en t was in te nd edto pro te ct . Unt il to da y , “ an y

ph y si cal in va si on of the stru ctur e o f th e h om e, ‘by ev ena frac ti on of an i nc h,’ was t oo m uc h.” Ky ll o, 5 33 U.S. at 3 7, 1 21 S. Ct. at20 45 . But
no w inth is Cir cu it , nei th er p ol ic e n orcit iz en s h av e adva nc e n ot ic e o f th e b ou nd s o f th e Fo urthAm en dm en t. Whatwil l h ap pe n i n t he ne xtcas e? Forex am pl e, if a pe rs on who no rm al ly keep s t he do orof h er at ta ch edga rag e cl os edis sl ow t o c lo se it up on he r return fr om

workat 6 :3 0 p .m ., is law en fo rcem en t n ow fr ee t o d artin to th e m om en ta ril y

op endo or ? Is l aw en fo rcem en t al lo wedto th engo th ro ug h t he ga rag e in to th e h ou se ? The s hi fti ng st an da rdest ab li sh edhe re n oton ly m ud dl es ou r Fo urth Am en dm en t ju ris pr

ud en ce, b utth reat en s t o s tri p t he ho m e o f it s s an ct ity . Ind eed , I fearth atth is cas e m ay

pre se ntth e fi rs t o f m an y un co ns ti tu ti on al en tri es in to ho m es th atare n o l on ge r pr oh ib it edby clear ly establ is he d l aw. Forth is reas on , inad di ti on to th os e se t o utby Jud ge Bark et t i n h er d is se nt , I res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t fr om

th e m ajor it y op in io n.

65