Court Opinion

ID: 9680891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:40:38.973546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:31.144151
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice. Jack Sanders was convicted of the manufacture of a controlled substance in the Logan County Circuit Court and sentenced to ten years in the Department of Correction. The narrow issue presented to us on appeal is whether Jack Sanders’ garden was protected from a warrantless search. We find that it was and reverse the judgment of the trial court. Several state and local police officers proceeded to Sanders’ home, which is a house trailer located on a tract of land in Sorghum Hollow, east of Midway, in Logan County. Sanders has on his place some junk automobiles and claims to be in the salvage business; otherwise, his place is an ordinary rural homeplace. Sanders was in his yard next to his house trailer when the officers arrived. He was served with a search warrant and the officers proceeded to search the premises. According to one of the state policemen, “. . . we found approximately fourteen hundred marijuana plants in his garden, or what appeared to be a garden.” The sheriff, in answer to questions, described where the marijuana was found: Q. Was there anything else growing there with it? A. Well, I believe he had a garden there, and I think there was some corn. Q. It was growing in the garden with some corn, and maybe some other vegetables? A. Yeah, I think that’s right. Q. Did you have to go through a fence to get there? A. I think we went through a fence when we drove the vehicles in there, we had to go out a little ways from the trailer and come through. Sanders’ garden, according to the evidence presented during the suppression hearing, was located some 100 to 200 yards behind his house trailer. A fence separated the house trailer from his garden. The garden contained corn, tomatoes, onions, radishes and the marijuana plants. There was a water hose that ran from the house trailer to the garden. The question presented at a pretrial hearing on a motion to suppress the evidence went mostly to the validity of the search warrant. Sanders’ place was searched pursuant to a search warrant, which the court had no difficulty in finding invalid. The court concluded: . . . However, it is the Court’s opinion that the protection of the constitution as to unreasonable search does not extend to fields or gardens or things of that nature, and does not believe it was necessary in order to make the search to have any search warrant at all. . . . [Emphasis added.] The court was wrong in its conclusion that a garden is necessarily the same as an open field and, consequently, may be searched without a warrant or for other good legal cause. There is a line of cases that permits an open field to be searched without a warrant. In Wyss v. State, 262 Ark. 502, 558 S.W. 2d 141 (1977), a truck was searched approximately a mile from a residence. In Bedell v. State, 257 Ark. 895, 521 S.W. 2d 200 (1975), a search took place in or near the middle of a 360 acre unenclosed tract. Apparently a residence was located near one edge of the tract. Ford v. State, 264 Ark. 141, 569 S.W. 2d 105 (1978), (mandate stayed pending petition for writ of cert., Sept. 18, 1978), a search was conducted of an open field on which was located no residence at all. These cases were legitimately cases of an open field search. In a similar, but not controlling case, we suppressed evidence found in an open field where entry was gained through the curtilage and information was obtained in the curtilage leading officers to contraband in an open field. Durham v. State, 251 Ark. 164, 471 S.W. 2d 527 (1971). Property seized that is located on one’s person, at one’s residence, or within the “curtilage” surrounding the residence may not be seized without a search warrant, or pursuant to other legal means. One’s dwelling and curtilage have consistently been held to be areas that may normally be considered free from government intrusion. Durham v. State, supra. A search warrant, or other proper legal cause, would be required for law enforcement officers to gain entry to one’s dwelling and curtilage. Normally a garden is included within the curtilage. Black’s Law Dictionary (Fourth Edition) defines curtilage as follows: The curtilage of a dwelling-house is a space, necessary and convenient and habitually used for the family purposes and the carrying on of domestic employments. It includes the garden, if there be one, and it need not be separated from other lands by a fence. A somewhat more expansive definition of curtilage may be found in 68 Am. Jur. 2d, § 19, at page 676: It has been said that the curtilage of a dwelling is a space necessary and convenient, habitually used for family purposes and for the carrying on of domestic employment; it is the yard, garden, or field which is near to and used on connection with the dwelling. Accordingly, a barn has been held to be within the curtilage of a house although it was 70 to 80 yards away and surrounded by a fence. And a barn has been held to be within the curtilage of a dwelling house on a small farm, where there were tracks of vehicles and footprints leading both to the house and to the barn, and there was a driveway between the barn and the house. The State’s argument that this was an open field search is inconsistent with the action of the officers and the physical facts in this case. First, they did not attempt to conduct an open field search. They attempted to search Sanders’ premises pursuant to a warrant that was later declared invalid. The first witness called by the State called it a garden — not an open field. Essentially, the State is using the open field argument as a crutch to shore up an otherwise illegal search. The officers were right the first time — a warrant was needed because the plot was Sanders’ garden, next to his dwelling. The distance between the garden and the dwelling, and the amount of vegetables as compared to the amount of marijuana in the plot are not controlling in this case. Clearly it is too late to attempt to change the physical facts to justify this search on the basis of such theoretical and interesting, but unconvincing arguments. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court was in error in ruling that the garden was an open field, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for a new trial. Reversed and remanded. Harris, C.J., and Fogleman and Byrd, JJ., dissent.