## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 0- 26 38

__ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el la nt

, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

Mi ch ael Jo e Wells , als o k no wn as *

Bu st er Well s, *

* App el le e. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 1, 2 01 1

Fi le d: Aug us t 8 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re WOL LMAN an d M ELLOY, Cir cu it Ju dg es , and MILLER, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. 1

__ __ __ __ __ _

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Afte r Mi ch ael Jo e W el ls was in di ct ed fo r co ns pi racy to m a n u f a c tu re

m et ha m ph et am in e, he m ov ed to su pp res s evi de nc e ob ta in ed du rin g two se arch es of

an ou tb ui ld in g be hi nd hi s ho us e. The d i s t r i c t co ur t gr an te d hi s m ot io n, an d th e 2

go ve rn m en t ap pe al s. See 18 U.S.C. § 3 73 1. We affi rm

.

The Hon or ab le Bri an S. Mi ll er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju d g e f o r th e East ern 1

Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, s it ti ng by des ig na ti on

.

The Hon or ab le St ep he n N. Lim ba ug h, Jr

., Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 2

East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.I.

In th e earl y m or ni ng ho ur s of May 20

, 20 09

, Offi cer Sh an e Bat es of th e Po pl ar

B lu ff, Mi ss ou ri po li ce de pa rtment rece iv ed a ti p fro m a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t t h a t

W el ls was m an uf

act u r i n g meth am

ph et am in e in an ou tb ui ld in g be hi nd hi s ho us e.

Bat es dr ov e pa st W el ls ’s ho us e a few t im es , bu t no ti ced no th in g un us ua l. W he n he

dr ov e pa st a fo ur th ti m e, h o w e v er, so m et im e be twee n 3: 00 an d 3: 30 a.m ., Bat es

no ti ced two op en do or s: on e o n a cam pe r pa rk ed on th e st reet in fro nt of t he ho us e

an d th e ot he r on a sh ed be hi nd th e ho us e. Bo th ha d be en cl os ed du rin g hi s pr ev io us

pa ss es

. Acco rd in g to Bat es , he th ou gh t it was “ po ss ib le ” th at th e op en do or s si gn ifi ed

a b ur gl ary. Sup pr es si on Hr’g Tr. at 1 0: 5- 6.

Bat es cal le d t wo o th er o ffi cers who were o n pa tro l at th e ti m e, Ja m es Gerb er

an d Ti m ot hy Akers , and th e th ree agr eed to m eet in pe rs on “ of fs it e” to di sc us s ho w

to pr oc eed

. Id

. at 11 :1 7- 21

. At 3: 56 a.m ., Ake rs cal le d po li ce he ad qu art ers wit h th ei r pl an : “ Me, Gerb er an d Bat es are fix in g to go do a kn oc k- an d- ta lk on Ri ve rv ie w, 92 4

Nor th Riv erv ie w,” th at is , W el ls ’s ho us e. D. Ct. Ord er o f Ju ne 14 , 20 10 , at 2

.

W el ls ’s ho us e is on a lo t th at

, vi ewed fro m th e st reet (fac in g so ut h)

, is 68 feet

wid e by 1 78 feet de ep

. The lo t is fen ced al on g it s si d e s a nd ba ck , b ut no t al on g it s

fro nt

. The ho us e is se t b a c k 2 7 f eet fro m th e st reet an d, at 44 feet wid e, oc cu pi es

ne arl y two -th ird s of th e wid th of th e lo t. A sh or t pa ve d dr iv eway le ad s fro m th e st reet

to a carp or t se t in to th e ho us e, an d a pa ve d walk way le ad s fro m th at dr iv eway to th e

fro nt do or . Add it io na ll y , a do or in th e car po rt l ead s i nt o t he ho us e.

On ei th er si de of th e ho us e th ere is a 12 -fo ot -wid e ga p be twee n th e ho us e an d

th e lo t fen ce. The ga p on th e wes te rn si de is co ve red wit h gr as s, whi le th e ga p on th e

-2

-eas te rn si de f o r ms p a r t of an un pa ve d dr iv eway ru nn in g fro m th e st reet

, al on g th e

eas te rn si de of t he ho us e, an d i nt o t he ba ck y ard to a sh ed ne ar t he ba ck of t he lo t. 3

B eh in d th e ho us e, an d acro ss th e ba ck y ard fro m th e un pa ve d dr iv eway, is a

two -s to ry ou tb ui ld in g. It ha s a gr ou nd -le ve l do or th at face s eas t, to ward s th e un pa ve d

dr iv eway, co nt ai ni ng a la rg e pa ne of fro st ed gl as s. The re is al so a se co nd -s to ry do or

faci ng no rth

, to ward s th e ho us e, acce ss ib le by a fli gh t of woo de n st ai rs

. The

ou tb ui ld in g s it s at leas t 1 0 fe et be hi nd th e h ou se an d i s, at be st , po or ly vis ib le fro m

th e st reet

.

The th ree of

fic ers arri ve d a t We l l s ’s ho us e at ab ou t 4: 00 a.m

. Ake rs an d

Gerb er lo ok ed in si de th e st reet

- pa rk ed cam pe r to be su re no on e was in si de

, whi le

Bat es walk ed do wn th e un pa ve d dri ve way to lo ok in th e ba ck y ard sh ed

. The re was

no on e in si de th e cam

pe r, an d Bat es sa w o nl y “ w h a t [ h e ] c a ll [s ] jun k” in th e sh ed

. Su pp res si on Hr’g Tr. at 29 :1 4- 18

. Hav in g fo un d not hing

, th e th ree of

fic ers reg ro up ed

on th e un pa ve d dr iv ew a y n e ar th e rear (s ou th eas t) co rn er of th e ho us e. Fro m th ere

th ey ha d a vi ew acro ss th e ba ck y ard of th e two -s to ry ou tb ui ld in g an d it s gr ou nd -le ve l

do or an d co ul d se e—t hr ou gh th e do or ’s f ro st ed -g la ss win do w—t ha t a li gh t was on

in si de

.

The of

fic ers walk ed acro ss th e ba ck y ard to th e li gh te d do o r

. Th r o u g h it s

win d o w t he of

fic ers co ul d se e “ m ov em en t in si de

. . . an d th at th ere [were ] act ua ll y

pe op le in th ere,” al th ou gh th e win do w tre at m en t m ad e it im po ss ib le to “ id en ti fy an [y ]

in di vi du al [s ]. ” Id

. 40 :2 -1 6. Acco rd in g to Bat es , th e of fic ers “ wait ed

, I do n’t kn ow,

m ay be 30 se co nd s, an d [G e r b e r ] k n o c k ed on th e do or .” Id

. at 12 :1 4- 18

. W el ls

an swe red

, an d as th e do or op en ed th e of fic ers im m ed ia te ly “ sm el l[e d] a st ro ng od or

of bu rn t m ari

juan a, an d [s aw th at ] th ere was sm ok e in th e ai r.” Id . at 1 3: 2- 14

.

The sh ed th at Bat es tes ti fie d h ad it s d oo r op en

. 3

-3

-The of fic ers or de r e d W el ls an d an ot he r m an who was wit h hi m , Ch arl es

Bru m m it

, to co m e ou ts id e. Gerb er th en wen t in si de to m ak e su re no on e el se was in

th e bu il di ng

. W hi le in si de he sa w “ a la rg e ba g of m ari juan a on th e ta bl e or on a sh el f
rig ht be si de th e do or .” Id

. a t 4 5 : 1 5

- 2 3. W el ls an d Bru m m it were arre st ed fo r

po ss es si on of m ari

juan a, an d a se arch of W el ls ’s pe rs on rev eal ed “ a co ffee fil te r wit h

m et ha m ph et am in e in it .” Id . at 8 3: 16 -2 1.

Late r th at m or ni ng , th e of fic ers ob ta in ed a se arch warra nt fo r th e ou tb ui ld in g,

su pp or te d in pa rt by th e ev id en ce co ll ect ed at th e ti m e of W el ls ’s arre st

. Pu rs ua nt to

th at w a r r a n t, th e of

fic ers fo un d an d “ se iz ed 34 it em s fro m th e [o ut bu il di ng ] as

ev id en ce of the m an uf

act ur e of m et ha m

ph et am in e.” D. Ct

. Ord er of Jun e 14

, 20 10

,
at 6.

Afte r be in g in di ct ed fo r co ns pi racy to m an uf act ur e m et ha m

ph et am in e, W el ls

m ov ed to su pp res s th e ev id en ce ob ta in ed bo th du rin g th e ni gh tt im e “ kn oc k- an d- ta lk ”

an d pu rs ua nt to th e la te r se arch warra nt

. He arg ue d th at th e of fic ers ha d vi ol at ed th e

Fo ur th Am en dm en t when th ey fir st en te red th e pr ot ect ed cu rti la ge of hi s ho us e (h is

ba ck y ard ) wit ho ut a warra nt or pr ob ab le cau se co up le d wit h ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces ,

an d th at th ei r vi ol at io n req ui red su pp res si on of th e “ fru it [s ]” of th at “ po is on ou s tre e,”

se e, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Alv arez -Ma nz o, 57 0 F.3 d 10 70

, 10 77 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ),

whi ch in cl ud ed an y

ev id en ce o bt ai ne d p ur su an t t o t he sea rch warran t.

T he gove rn m ent res po nd ed th at W el ls ha d no reas on ab le expe ct at ion of pr iva cy

in th e un pa ve d d riv eway an d th eref or e th e of fic ers ha d be en la wfu ll y st an di ng in it

whe n th ey ob se rv ed th e li gh te d ou tb ui ld in g. In an y ev en t, th e go ve r n men t a r g u ed

,

ev en if th e un pa ve d dr iv e w a y is pr ot ect ed cu rti la ge , th e of fic ers were jus ti fie d in

en te rin g it be cau se th ey were res po nd in g to an ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ce, i.e.

, th e po ss ib le

on go in g b ur gl ary.

-4

-The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d W el ls ’s m ot io n. Not in g th at “ th e ba ck y ard area was

fen ced in on th ree si de s,” an d th at

, “ ex cep t fo r th e na rro w un pa ve d” dr iv eway le ad in g

t o th e sh ed

, “ th e ba ck y ard co ul d no t be vi ewed fro m th e st reet ,” th e di st ri c t c o u r t

co nc lu de d th at W el ls “ ha d a pr ot ect ab le ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in [] th e en ti ret y of th e

pr op ert y be hi nd hi s res id en ce, es pe ci al ly at 4: 00 a.m .” D. Ct

. Ord er of Ju ne 14

, 20 10

,
at 7. Fu rth erm or e, it reject ed “ th e go ve rn m en t’s co nt en ti on th at th e ex is te nc e of th e

un pa ve d dr iv eway co ns ti tu te d a ta ci t in vi ta ti on to th e pu bl ic to en te r on th e pr em is es by way of th [at ] dr iv eway, ” reas on in g th at “ [t]o th e ex te nt th at th e ge ne ral pu bl ic

, an d

th e po li ce, were ta ci tl y in vi te d to en te r on th e pr em is es , th e in vi ta ti on ex te nd ed

, as in

th e cas e of m os t pr em is es , so le ly to th e fro nt [p av ed ] dr iv eway an d th e fro nt do or of

th e res id en ce.” Id

. And it co nc lu de d th at “ th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces ” di d no t

su pp or t th e go ve rn m en t’s cl ai m th at an ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ce— a “ pe rcei ve d

bu r gl ary, ” “ ba se d so le ly o n th e of fic er’s ob se rv at io n” of two op en do or s— ex cu se d

th e of fic ers ’ fai lu re to ob ta in a warra nt pr io r to en te rin g W el ls ’s ba ck y ard

. Id

. at 5.

It th eref or e “s u p p r e s s [ed ] fro m ev id en ce an y an d al l it em s se iz ed by th e arre st in g

of fic ers fro m

[W el ls ’s] pe rs on , p os se ss io ns , ou t b ui ld in g a nd res id en ce o n M ay 20

, 20 09 .” Def.’s Mo t. t o S up pr es s Ev id en ce; D. Ct. Ord er o f Ju ne 14 , 20 10 , at 8

.

The go ve rn m en t ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in co nc lu di ng th at

W el ls ’s ha d a reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in an y pa rt of th e un pa ve d dr iv eway.

II.

“T he rig ht of th e pe op le to be se cu re in th ei r

. . . ho us es

. . . a g a i n s t

un reas on ab le se arch es an d sei zu res , sh al l no t be vio la te d .

. . .” U.S. Co ns t. am en d.

IV. Thi s “ pr ot ect io n ex te nd s to th e cu rti la ge su rro un di ng a ho m e,” Uni te d St at es v.

W es to n, 4 43 F.3d 66 1, 6 66 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6) , whi ch “ is th e area to whi ch ex te nd s th e

in ti m at e act iv it y as so ci at ed wit h t h e sa nc ti ty of a m an ’s ho m e an d th e pr iv aci es of

li fe, an d th eref

or e ha s be en co ns id ered pa rt of th e ho m e it se lf fo r Fo ur th Am en dm en t

pu rp os es .” Oli ve r v. Un it ed Sta te s, 4 66 U.S. 17 0, 1 80 (19 84 ) (ci ta ti on an d i nt ern al

-5

-qu ot at io n m ark s om itte d)

. Co ns eq ue nt ly, cu rti la ge ge ne ral ly “ sh ou ld be tre at ed as th e

ho m e it se lf.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Dun n, 4 80 U.S. 29 4, 3 00 (19 87 ).

To de te rm in e whe th er th e of fic ers vi ol at ed W el ls ’s Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht

,

we m us t an swe r two qu es ti o n s : ( 1 ) D i d th e of fic ers en te r th e cu rti la ge of W el ls ’s

ho m e whe n th ey walk ed al on g th e un pa ve d dr iv eway to th e ba ck y ard ? ; an d, if so , (2 )

W as th at en try reas on ab le ?

A.

The di st ri c t co ur t de te rm in ed th at th e po rti on of th e un pa ve d dr iv eway

ex te nd in g p as t t he rear of Well s’s h om e an d i nt o t he ba ck y ard is pa rt of th e h om e’s

cu rti la ge

. See D. Ct

. Ord er of Ju ne 22

, 20 10

, at 1 (co nc lu di ng th at W el ls “ ha d a

pr ot ect ab le ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy to th [e] pa r t o f t h e dr iv eway in th e ba ck of th e

ho us e”). 4

The go ve rn m en t po in ts ou t th at “ th e Dis tri ct Co ur t ne ve r a ct ua ll y m ad e a 4

fact ua l de te rm in at io n th at th e un pa ve d dr iv eway an d sh ed were pa rt of th e cu rti la ge

o f t he ho m e, in st ead si m pl y st at in g th at W el ls ‘had a reas on ab le ex pe ct at i o n o f

pr iv acy to th at pa rt of th e dr iv eway in th e ba ck of th e ho us e.’” App el la nt ’s Br. at 19

. Bu t th e wor d “ cu rti la ge ,” us ed in th is co nt ex t, is no th in g m or e th an a pl aceh ol de r fo r th os e area s su rro un di ng th e ho m e in whi ch th e ho m eo wne r r e a s o n ab ly m ay ex pe ct

pr iv acy. See Ky ll o v. Uni te d St at es , 53 3 U.S. 27

, 33 (2 00 1) (“ [A] Fo ur th Am en dm en t

se arch do es no t oc cu r—e ve n whe n th e ex pl ic it ly pr ot ect ed lo cat io n of a ho us e is

co nc ern ed

—u nl es s t he in di vi du al m an ife st ed a su bjec ti ve ex pe ct at io n of p riv acy in

th e ob ject of th e ch al le ng ed se arch

, an d so ci et y is wil li ng to r e c og ni ze th at

ex pe ct at io n as reas on ab le .” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ); Oliv er, 466 U.S. at
18 0 (“ [C]ou rts

. . . ha ve de fin ed th e cu rti la ge

. . . by refe r e n c e to th e fact or s th at
de te rm in e whe th e r a n in di vi du al reas on ab ly m ay ex pe ct th at an area im m ed ia te ly

ad jacen t to th e ho m e wil l rem ai n pr iv at e.”); Uni te d St at es v. Arb ol ed a, 63 3 F.2 d 98 5,

99 2 ( 2 d C i r

. 19 80 ) (Fri en dl y , J.) (“ Term in g a pa rti cu la r area cu rti la ge ex pr es se s a

co nc lu si on ; it do es no t ad va nc e Fo ur th Am en dm en t an al y si s. The rel ev an t qu es ti on is

. . . whe th er t he de fen da nt ha s a l eg it im at e ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy in t he area .”).

-6

-Befo re we rev ie w th at de te rm in at io n, we no te th e pa rti es ’ di sa gr eem en t on th e

pr op er st an da rd of rev ie w. W el ls arg ue s th at a di st ric t co ur t’s cu rti la ge de te rm in at io n

is a fin di ng o f f

a c t

, r e vi ewab le on ly fo r cl ear erro r. He po in ts ou t th at we ha ve

pr ev io us ly ap pl ie d th e cl earl y -err on eo us st an da rd to su ch de te rm in at io ns ,

se e, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Fri en d, 50 F.3 d 54 8, 55 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ), cer t. gr an te d,

ju dg men t va ca te d, a n d c a s e r ema nd ed on ot he r gr ou nd s , 51 7 U.S. 11 52 (1 99 6)
(m em .), an d th eref

or e in si st s th at we, as a pa ne l, m us t do so ag ai n, s e e Kos te le c v.

S t at e Farm Fi re an d Cas ua lt y Co ., 6 4 F.3 d 12 20 , 1 22 8 n.8 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (A p a n e l

is “ po werl es s to res ol ve [] co nf li ct in ou r de ci si on s, as on e pa ne l of th is Co ur t is no t

at li be rty to ov erru le an op in io n fil ed by an ot he r pa ne l. Onl y th e Co ur t en ba nc m ay

ta ke su ch a st ep .” (in te rn al qu ot at io n mar k s om it te d) ). The go ve rn m en t

ack no wled ge s th at we ha ve at ti m es ap pl ie d th e cl earl y -err on eo us st an da rd

, bu t ur ge s

th at th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s de ci si on in Orn el as v. Uni te d St at es , 51 7 U.S. 69 0 (1 99 6)

, cal ls for de no vo rev ie w. 5

Orn el as ho ld s on ly th at we m us t rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co ur t’s reas on ab le

su sp ic io n an d pr ob ab le -cau se de te rm in at io ns —i t do es no t by it se lf m an da te th e sa m e

fo r cu rti la ge de te rm in at io ns

. Nev ert h el es s, th ere are pe rs ua si ve reas on s to

co nc lu de —as ha ve al l of th e ci rcu it s to co ns id er th is qu es ti on po st -Orn el as —t ha t de

no vo rev ie w ap pl ie s to cu rti la ge de te rm in at io ns

. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Co us in s,

45 5 F .3d 11 16 , 11 21 (10 th Cir . 20 06 ) (g at he rin g c as es ).

Ac c o rd in gl y , were we th e fir st pa ne l of ou r co ur t to rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s

cu rti la ge de te rm in at io n po st -Orn el as , we m ig ht well ho ld th at de no vo rev ie w ap pl ie s

to su ch de te rm in at io ns . But we are no t t he fir st . To th e co nt rary, sin ce Orn el as we

As th e go ve rn m en t corr ec tly no te s, “ su bs id ia ry fact ua l fin di ng s in fo rm in g [th e 5

c u r t i l a g e ] de te rm in at io n wou ld st il l, of co ur se , be rev ie wed fo r cl ear erro r.” App el la nt ’s Br

. a t 1 8

. A t i s su e he re is th e st an da rd of rev ie w to be ap pl ie d to th e ul ti m at e de te rm in at io n “ th at a pa rti cu la r area is or is no t pa rt of a ho m e’s cu rti la ge .”
Id . at 1 9.

-7

-h a v e r e vi ewed a di st ric t co ur t’s cu rti la ge de te rm in at io n in se ve n rep or te d cas es

.

See Uni te d St at es v. Bro ok s, No. 10 -3 82 6, sl ip op

. at 5- 6 (8 th Ci r. Ju l y 1 4, 20 11 );

Nik ol as v. Ci ty of Om ah a, 60 5 F.3 d 53 9, 54 5- 46 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 1 0 ) ; Uni te d St at es v.

Lak os ke y , 46 2 F.3 d 96 5, 97 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ); Uni te d St at es v. Bo y st er, 43 6 F.3 d 98 6,

99 1- 92 (8 th Ci r. 20 0 6) ; Uni te d St at es v. Gerar d, 36 2 F.3 d 48 4, 48 7- 88 (8 th Ci r.

20 04 ) ; Uni te d St at es v. Pen ni ng to n, 28 7 F.3 d 73 9, 74 5- 46 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ); Uni te d

St at es v. Mo or in g, 1 37 F.3d 59 5, 5 96 -9 7 (8 th Cir . 19 98 ).

In fiv e of th ose ca se s—B rook s, Nik ol as , Lak os ke y , Bo y st er, an d Pen ni ng to n—

we affi rm ed a di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at an area was pa rt of a ho m e’s

cu rti la ge wit ho ut ment io ni ng a de fere nt ia l st an da rd of rev ie w. In th e ot he r 6

t w o— Gerar d an d Mo or in g— we ex pl ic it ly st at ed th at we were rev ie win g fo r cl ea r

erro r on ly. See Gerar d, 36 2 F.3 d at 48 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (“ App lying th es e fo ur [ Dun n ]

fact or s to Gerar d’s farm st ead an d th e area im m e d i a t el y su rro un di ng it

, th e di st ric t

co ur t’s fin di n g t h a t t h e ga rag e la y ou ts id e th e cu rti la ge of th e farm ho us e was no t

cl earl y erro ne ou s.”) ; Mo or in g, 13 7 F.3 d at 59 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (“ Afte r rev ie win g th e

reco rd in li gh t of th e rel ev an t [ Dun n ] fact or s, we co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng

th at th e ba rn was no t wit hi n th e farm ho us e’s cu rti la ge was no t cl earl y erro ne ou s.”)

. 7

Exc ep t fo r ge ne ral st at em en ts of de fere nc e t o fact ua l fin di ng s. 6
See, e.g ., Bro ok s, sl ip op

. at 4 (“ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si on s of la w

reg ard in g a m ot io n t o s up pr es s d e n ov o a nd fin di ng s o f fac t fo r cl ear e rro r.”).

The Mo or in g a p pe ll an ts ci te d Orn el as in th ei r op en in g br ie f, arg ui ng : “ The 7

fact ua l de te rm in at io ns un de rlyin g th e qu es ti on of cu rti la ge are rev ie wed u n d e r th e cl earl y erro ne ou s st an da rd ; bu t th e ul ti m at e de te rm in at io n of whe th er th e Fo ur th

Am en dm en t was vi ol at ed is rev ie wed de no vo .” Br. of App el la nt at vi

, Uni te d St at es

v. Mo or in g, 13 7 F.3d 59 5 (8t h Cir. 19 98 ) (No

. 97 -2 68 2) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. In th ei r

pe ti ti on fo r pa ne l an d en ba n c r e he ari ng , th ey arg ue d m or e ex pl ic it ly th at un de r Orn el as “ th e pa ne l wa s r e q u i red to vi ew th e cu rti la ge is su e de no vo .” App el la nt ’s

Pet

. fo r Reh ’g at 1, Uni te d St at es v. Mo or in g, 13 7 F.3 d 59 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (No

. 97

- 26 82 ). The p et it io n was de ni ed

.

-8

-Hav in g a ck no wled ge d th e co nf li ct in ou r ho ld in gs , it is no t with in ou r po wer

to res ol ve it

. See Kos te le c, 64 F.3 d at 12 28 n.8

. Nor wou ld res ol ut io n of th at co nf li ct

affe ct th e res ul t in th is cas e. Fo r th e reas on s se t fo rth be lo w, ev en up on d e n o vo

rev ie w we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at th e po rti on of W el ls ’s un pa ve d dr iv eway

ex te nd in g pa st th e r e a r of hi s ho m e an d in to th e ba ck y ard is pa rt of th e ho m e’s

cu rti la ge

. A fo rt io ri th at de te rm in at io n i s n ot cle arl y erro ne ou s.

The “ cen tra ll y rel ev an t co ns id erat io n” in an y cu rti la ge de t erm in at io n is

“ whe th er th e area in qu es ti on is so in ti m at el y ti ed to th e ho m e it se lf th at it sh ou ld be
pl aced un de r th e ho m e’s ‘um br el la ’ of Fo u r th Am en dm en t pr ot ect io n.” Dun n, 48 0

U.S. at 30 1. W e res ol ve su ch qu es ti on s “ wit h pa rti cu la r refe ren ce to fo ur fact or s: [1 ]

th e pr ox im it y of th e area cl ai m ed to be cu rti la ge to th e ho m e, [2 ] whe th er th e area is

in c l u d e d w i t hi n an en cl os ur e su rro un di ng th e ho m e, [3 ] th e na tu re of th e us es to

whi ch th e area is pu t, an d [4 ] th e st ep s ta ke n by th e res id en t to pr ot ect th e area fro m

ob se rv at io n b y

pe op le pa ss in g b y .” Id . at 3 01

.

The fir st th ree fact or s weig h he av il y in fav or of th e di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si on

th at th e po rti on of th e un pa ve d dr iv eway ex te nd in g pas t th e rear of W el ls ’s ho m e is

pa rt of th e ho m e’s cu rti la ge

. The un pa ve d dr iv eway ru ns al on gs id e a n d ab ut s th e

ho m e’s eas te rn wall . The are a o f th e d riv eway on whi ch th e o ffi cers were s ta nd in g

whe n th ey ob se rv ed th e li gh te d o u t b u il di ng is jus t be hi nd th e ho m e an d on ly a few

f e e t fro m it

. In or de r to arri ve at th at po in t, pa ss ers -b y wou ld be req ui red to walk

, fro m th e st reet

, 27 feet do wn th e un pa ve d dr iv eway to th e fro nt (n or th eas t) co rn er of

th e ho m e, an d th en an ot he r 24 feet to th e rear (s ou th eas t) co rn er, pa ss in g th ro ug h th e

12 -fo ot -wid e ga p be twee n th e ho me a n d t h e l ot fen ce. Alo ng th e way th ey wou ld

pa ss bo th th e pa ve d walk way le ad in g to W e l l s ’s fro nt do or an d th e do or in th e

The Gerar d ap pe ll an t di d no t ci te Orn el as , bu t arg ue d: “ Thi s Co ur t rev ie ws th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng s of fact fo r cl ear erro r an d th e lo wer co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at
th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t was no t vi ol at ed d e n o v o

. ” Br. of App el la nt at 4, Uni te d

St at es v. Gera rd , 36 2 F .3d 48 4 (8 th Cir . 20 04 ) (No . 03 -1 65 5)

.

-9

-c a r p o rt. And

, at al l ti m es th ey wou ld be fla nk ed on th ree si de s by W el ls ’s fen c e ,

whi ch en cl os es th e lo t o n i ts si de s an d b ack

.

Add it io na ll y , th e reco rd co nt ai ns ev id en ce th at th e ba ck y ard —wh ic h in cl ud es

th e p art of t he dri ve way whe re the of fic ers st oo d— is us ed for “ th e in ti m at e act iv it y

as so ci at ed wit h th e sa nc ti ty of [Wells ]’ s ho m e an d th e pr iv aci es of li fe.” Oli ve r, 46 6

U.S. at 18 0 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s omi t t e d )

. A mon g ot he r th in gs , it co nt ai ns a

ch il d’s wag on an d sl ed

, a bo at

, a la wnm owe r, a rab bi t hu tc h, an d a bu rn ba rrel

. And

, in an y ev en t, “ [o ]ne is no t req ui red to ke ep pa rti cu la r do m es ti c ob jects on on e’s la wn

in ord er to m ai nt ai n a reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy.” U ni te d S ta te s v . Garro tt

, 74 5 F. Su pp

. 2d 12 06

, 12 12 (M.D. Ala. 20 10 ). A ba ck y ard th at is acce ss ib le on ly by

walk in g aro un d th e si de of a ho m e i s a p l ace ge ne ral ly reco gn iz ed as “ an area

in ti m at el y li nk ed to th e ho m e, bo th ph y si c a l l y an d ps y ch ol og ic al ly, whe re pr iv acy

ex pe ct at io ns are m os t he ig ht en ed .” Fl or id a v. Ri le y , 48 8 U.S. 44 5, 45 2 (1 98 9)
(O’Con no r, J., co nc ur rin g) (q uo ti ng Cal ifo rn ia v. Ci rao lo

, 47 6 U.S. 20 7, 21 3 (1 98 6) );

acco rd Dau gh en ba ug h v. Ci ty of Tiff in

, 15 0 F.3 d 59 4, 60 1- 02 (6 th Ci r. 19 98 )
(co nc lu di ng th at an en ti re ba ck y ard was wit hi n th e cu rtl ia ge of th e ho m e); Uni te d

St at es v. J en ki ns , 1 24 F.3 d 76 8, 77 2- 73 (6 th Ci r. 19 97 ) (s am e); cf. Bro ok s, sl ip op

.
at 2, 5- 6 (co nc lu di ng th at th e ba ck y ard of an “ ur ba n m ul ti -fam il y

dwe ll in g” —ac ces si bl e fro m a “ pu bl ic al le y

. . . lo cat ed di rect ly be hi nd th e ba ck y ard

area ”—wa s n ot pa rt o f th e cu rti la ge of a n a pa rtment i ns id e th e d well in g)

.

The fin al fact or

—“ th e st ep s [Wells to ok ] to pr ot ect th e area fro m ob se rv at io n by pe op le pa ss in g by,” Dun n, 48 0 U.S. at 30 1— is le ss co nc lu si ve

. Cert ai nl y th ere are

la rg e po rti on s of th e ba ck y ard —i nc lu di ng th e ou tb ui ld in g— th at are no t vi si bl e fro m

th e st reet

. Bu t th e en ti ret y of th e un pa ve d dr iv eway is vi si bl e fro m th e st reet

, at le as t

if th e ob se rv er st an ds at it s no rth ern en d an d lo ok s di rect ly do wn it

. The go ve rn m en t

arg ue s th at th is sh ou ld be en ou gh to de pr iv e W el ls of an y reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n of

pr iv acy in an y pa rt of th e un p a v e d dr iv eway, in cl ud in g th e pa rt ex te nd in g in to th e

ba ck y ard . W e are he si ta nt , ho wev er, t o g iv e th is fact or co nt ro ll in g wei gh t.

-1 0-A reas on ab le e x p e c ta ti on of pr iv acy wil l no t al way s be an ex pe ct at io n of

ab so lu te pr iv acy. See, e.g ., Katz v. Uni t e d S t a te s, 38 9 U.S. 34 7, 34 9- 52 (1 96 7)
(“ [Kat z] was as vi si bl e aft er he en te red [th e te le ph on e bo ot h] as he wou ld ha ve be en

if he ha d rem ai ne d ou ts id e. Bu t wha t he so ug ht to ex cl ud e whe n he en te red th e bo ot h

was no t th e in tru di ng ey e—i t was the un in vi te d ear. He di d no t sh ed hi s rig ht to do

so si m pl y be cau se he m ad e hi s cal ls f r o m a pl ace whe re he m ig ht be se en .”).

Cert ai nl y W el ls wou ld ha ve no cau se to co m pl ai n ha d th e of

fic ers , st an di ng in th e

pu bl ic st reet

, ob se rv ed h i m o p e nl y co ok in g m et ha m ph et am in e on th e un pa ve d

dr iv eway, jus t as he w ou ld ha ve no cau se to co m pl ai n had th e of

fic ers ob se rv ed th e

sa m e th ro ug h an op en win do w in hi s ho m e. “ The Fo ur th Am en dm en t pro te ct io n of

th e ho m e ha s ne ve r be en ex te nd ed to req ui re la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers to sh ie ld th ei r

ey es whe n p as si ng by a ho m e o n pu bl ic th or ou gh fare s.” Ci rao lo

, 47 6 U.S. at 21 3.

Bu t an of fic er’s ab il it y to ob se rv e th ro ug h op en win do ws wha t ha pp en s in si de

a ho me d o es no t al to ge th er ex ti ng ui sh th e ho m eo wne r’s ot he rwis e reas on ab le

ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in th e ho m e it se lf. Not ev en pr ob ab le cau se , ab se nt an ex ig en t

ci rcu m st an ce, woul d per m it an of fic er to en te r th at ho m e wit ho ut a warra nt to m ak e

an arre st or se iz e co nt rab an d. See Co ol id ge v. New Ham ps h i r e , 4 03 U.S. 4 43 , 4 68
(1 97 1) (“ [P]la i n vi ew al on e is ne ve r en ou gh to jus ti fy th e warra nt le ss se iz ur e of

ev id en ce. .

. . [It ] m ay es ta bl is h th e fu ll es t po ss ib le m eas ur e of pr ob ab le cau se

. Bu t

ev en whe re th e ob

ject is co nt rab an d, th is Co ur t ha s rep eat ed ly st at ed an d en fo rced th e

ba si c r u l e t h a t t he po li ce m ay no t en te r an d m ak e a warra nt le ss se iz ur e.”). Tha t a

ho m eo wne r ex po se s so m e po rti on of hi s dwe ll in g to pu bl ic vi ew is no t a li cen se fo r

of fic ers to tre at it as p ub li c sp ace.

Si m il arl y , we th in k th at a ho m eo wne r m ay ex po se po rti on s of th e cu rti la ge of

hi s ho m e to pu bl ic vi ew whi le st il l m ai nt ai ni ng so m e ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in th os e

area s. In th is cas e, f

o r e x am pl e, W el ls cert ai nl y ex po se d hi s un pa ve d dr iv eway to

pu bl ic vi ew, an d th eref

o re co ul d no t reas on ab ly ex pe ct th at m em be rs of th e pu bl ic

wou ld no t ob se rv e wha te ve r he m ig ht do th ere. Bu t he co ul d reas on ab ly ex pe ct th at

-1 1-m em

be rs of th e pu bl ic wou ld no t t r a i p s e d own th e dr iv e to th e ba ck co rn er of hi s

ho m e, fro m whe re th ey co ul d free ly ob se rv e hi s en ti re ba ck y ard

. Acco rd Garro tt

, 74 5

F. Su pp

. 2d at 1 2 1 3 (“ Tho ug h th e y ard was vi si bl e fro m be y on d th e fen ce, it is

im po rta nt to di st in gu is h th e ph y si cal in va si on in to de fen da nt s’ ba ck y ard th at to ok
pl ace in th is cas e fro m vi su al in sp ect io n fro m a l a w f u l v a n t ag e po in t.” (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ). W e t h e r e f o re wil l no t acco rd th is fo ur th fact or th e

co nt ro ll in g wei gh t t he go ve rn m en t’s p os it io n re qu ire s.

Alt ho ug h we re c o g n i z e “ th at co m bi ni ng th es e fact or s [d oe s no t] pr od uc e[] a

fin el y tu ne d fo rm

ul a” to be “ m ech an ic al ly ap pl ie d,” Dun n, 48 0 U.S. at 30 1, we th in k

th at th is “ un iq ue se t of fact s,” Uni te d St at e s v

. R e i l l y, 76 F.3 d 12 71

, 12 76 (2 d Ci r.

19 96 ), re q u i r e s t h e c on cl us io n th at “ th e area in qu es ti on is so in ti m at el y ti ed to th e

ho m e it se lf th at it sh ou ld be pl a ced un de r th e ho m e’s ‘um br el la ’ of Fo ur th

Am en dm en t p ro te ct io n.” Dun n, 4 80 U.S. at 3 01

.

Acco rd in gl y , we co nc lu de th at th e of fic ers were s ta nd in g i n a n a rea in whi ch

W el ls ’s ha d a reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy, i.e.

, th e cu rti la ge of hi s ho m e, whe n

th ey ob se rv ed th e li gh te d o ut bu il di ng

.

B.

Th e ot he r qu es ti on rem ai ns : W as th e of fic ers ’ en try on to th e cu rti la ge

co ns ti tu ti on al ly un reas on ab le ? W he n po li ce of fic ers ch oo se to en te r a ho m e, th e

Fo ur th Am en dm en t req ui res th at th ey fir st ob ta in co ns en t or a warra nt

, or , in ex ig en t

ci rcu m st an ces , ha ve pr ob ab le cau se

. See Sch ne ck lo th v. Bu st am on te

, 41 2 U.S. 21 8,

22 2 (1 97 3) ; Payton v. New Yor k, 44 5 U.S. 57 3, 5 8 6

- 8 7 ( 19 80 ). Bec au se we tre at

cu rti la ge as p art of t he ho m e, Oli ve r, 46 6 U.S. at 18 0, t ho se same rul es ap pl y he re.

The re is no di sp ut e th at th e of fic ers di d no t ha ve W el ls ’s ex pr es s co ns en t or a

warra nt whe n th ey en te red W e l l s ’s ba ck y ard

, no r ha s th e go ve rn m en t ap pe al ed th e

-1 2-di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si on th at it s “ cl ai m of ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces as an ex cep ti on to

th e warra nt req ui rem en t [was ] si m pl y to o weak to pa ss co ns ti tu ti on al m us te r.” D. Ct

. Ord er of Ju ne 14

, 20 10

, at 5. The refo re, if th e of fic ers ’ en try can be jus ti fie d, it co ul d

on ly be un de r th os e cas es reco gn iz in g th at “ no Fo ur th Am en dm en t se arch oc cu rs

whe n po li ce of

fic ers who en te r pr iv at e pr op ert y re s t r i c t t he ir m ov em en ts to th os e

area s ge ne ral ly m ad e acce ss ib le to vi si to rs —s uc h as dr iv eways, walk way s, or si m il ar

p a s s a g e w a y s.” Uni te d St at es v. Ree d, 73 3 F.2 d 49 2, 50 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 84 ). Th i s

pr in ci pl e pe rm it s po li ce of fic ers —co ns is te nt wit h th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t— to
“app ro ach [] th e fro nt do or to an no un ce th ei r pr es en ce,” m ak e “ in qu ir[ ie s ], ” a n d

“ req ue st co ns en t to se arch th e rem ai nd er of th e pr op ert y ,” “ co m m on ly refe rred to as

a ‘kno ck an d ta lk .’ ” Uni te d St at es v. W es to n, 44 3 F.3 d 66 1, 6 6 7 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 06 )
(ci ti ng Reed , 73 3 F .2d at 5 01 ).

W e can th in k of two po s s i b l e ju s t ifi cat io ns fo r th is ru le

. One is th at “ area s

ge ne ral l y m ad e acce ss ib le to vi si to rs —s uc h as dr iv eways, walk way s, or si m il ar

pa ss ag eways,” Ree d, 73 3 F.2 d at 50 1, are si m pl y no t area s in whi ch a pe rs on can

reas on ab ly m ai nt ai n an y ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Mae st as , 63 9 F.3 d 10 32

, 10 36 -3 7 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 11 ); Uni te d St at es v. Pi ne da -Mo ren o, 59 1 F.3 d

12 12

, 12 14 -1 5 (9 th Ci r. 20 10 ). The ot he r is th at ho m eo wne rs gr an t m em be rs of th e

vis iti ng publ ic —m ai l ca

rr ie rs , sa nit at io n wor ke rs , ne ig hb or s, an d Girl Sco ut s, to na m e

a few— an im

pl ie d co ns en t to en te r th es e area s fo r th os e pu rp os es th at acco m pa ny th e

no rm al in te ract io ns of a so ci al

, ci vi li zed so ci et y

. Acco rd Uni te d St at es v. Si m m s, 62 6

F.3 d 9 66 , 96 9- 71 (7t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

The di st ric t co ur t id en ti fie d th e la tt er as th e jus ti fic at io n fo r th e “k n o c k- an dta lk ” ru le

, se e D. Ct

. Ord er of Ju ne 22

, 20 10

, at 2, an d we, ha vi ng al read y co nc lu de d

th at th e of

fic ers were in a pl ace whe re W el ls reas on ab ly co ul d e x p e c t pr iv acy,

li ke wis e wil l co ns id er whe th er th e of fic ers en te red th e cu rti la ge pu rs ua nt to W el ls ’s

im pl ie d c on se nt . W e co nc lu de th at th ey di d n ot

.

-1 3-To th e ex te nt th at th e “ kn oc k- an d- ta lk ” ru le is gro un de d i n t he ho m eo wne r’s

im pl ie d co ns en t to be co nt act ed at ho m e, we ha ve ne ve r fo un d s u c h c on se nt whe re

of fic ers m ad e no at te m

pt to reac h th e ho m eo wne r at th e fro nt do or

. In Uni te d St at es

v. And ers on , we co nc lu de d th at it was co ns ti tu ti on al ly reas on ab le fo r po li ce of fic ers , who were tryin g to fin d a su sp ect “ to qu es ti on hi m ab ou t [a] th eft ,” to “ pr oc eed [] to

th e rea r [ o f t h e su sp ect ’s ho m e] aft er rece iv in g no an swe r at th e fro nt do or ,” ev en

th ou gh do in g so “ in va de d an area wit h res pe ct to whi ch [th e su sp ect ] ha d a reas on ab le

ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy.” 552 F.2d 12 96 , 13 00 (8t h C ir. 1 97 7)

.

Si m il arl y , i n Uni te d St at es v. Rai ne s , we co nc lu de d th at th ere was no Fo ur th

Am en dm en t vi ol at io n whe n a po li ce of fic er at te m

pt in g to s e r v e c i vi l pr oc es s

“ rece iv [ed ] no res po ns e at th e fro nt do or ” of a ho m e, an d so “ pr oc eed ed to th e ba ck

of th e ho m e.” 24 3 F.3 d 41 9, 42 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ). The of fic er te st ifi ed th at “ be cau se

it was a pl eas an t s um m er ev en in g an d se ve ral cars were pa rk ed in th e dr iv eway, he

th ou gh t it li ke ly t he oc cu pa nt s were ou ts id e in th e ba ck y ard ” an d m ig ht be “ un ab le

to he ar h im

kn oc ki ng at t he fro nt do or .” Id . at 4 20 -2 1.

In bo th cas es , po li ce of

fic ers fir st m ad e an at te m

pt to co nt act th e ho m eo wne rs

at th e pl ace th ey wou ld m os t lo gi cal ly be reac he d— th e fro nt do or

. Here, th e of fic ers

m ad e no at te m

pt to rai se W el ls at th e fro nt do or , no r di d th ey pa us e at th e do or in th e

c arp or t. In st ead

, th ey fir st walk ed to th e ba ck co rn er of th e ho m e fro m whe re th e y

ha d a vi ew of th e en ti re ba ck y ard

. Fu rth erm or e, t h is was no “ pl eas an t su m m er

ev en in g” —i t was 4: 00 a.m

. Oth er th a n p e r h a ps th ei r su sp ic io n of dr ug

m an uf act ur in g, th ere was no reas on fo r th e o f f i c e r s to th in k th at W el ls wou ld be

fo un d in th e ba ck y a r d at th at ti m e, no r was th ere an y reas on fo r th em to th in k th at

W el ls ge ne ral ly wou ld rece iv e “ vi si to rs ” th ere. Tha t th e of fic ers were st an di ng on a

“dri ve way ,” Ree d, 73 3 F.2 d at 50 1, is no t a su ffi ci en t an swe r. Unl ik e th e p a v e d

d r i v e w a y i n W el ls ’s fro nt y ard

, whi ch co nn ect s to hi s fro nt do or vi a a pa ve d

walk way , t he un pa ve d dr iv eway pa ss in g aro un d th e si de of th e ho m e is no t an area

“ ge ne ral ly m ad e acce ss ib le to v i s it or s.” Id

. W e are no t pr ep ared to ex te nd th e

-1 4-“ kn oc k- an d- ta lk ” ru le to si tu at io ns in whi ch th e p o l i c e f o r g o th e kn oc k at th e fro nt

do or an d, wit ho ut an y reas on to be li ev e th e ho m eo wne r wil l be fo un d th ere, pr oc eed

di rect ly to th e ba ck y ard

. Acco rd You ng v. Ci ty of Rad cl iff

, 56 1 F. Su pp

. 2d 76 7, 78 8

n.1 2 ( W. D

. Ky

. 20 08 ) (“ Sn eak in g aro un d th e ba ck y ard is no t pa rt of a le gi ti m at e

co ns ti tu ti on al ‘kno ck an d ta lk .’ ”). Acco rd in gl y , th e of fic ers ’ en try in th is cas e can no t

be jus ti fie d a s a “ kn oc k- an d- ta lk .”

III.

The ord er s up pr es si ng th e ev id en ce i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 5-