Court Opinion

ID: 9785187
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:07:41.020039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:09.033786
License: Public Domain

Dalianis, J.,
dissenting. I would affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress because I do not believe that the defendant exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy in his deck. The trial court *270found that the deck was visible from the driveway and the side door. There were no gates, fences, or other impediments between the side door to the home and the deck. The defendant did not erect a “No Trespassing” sign. There were steps leading to the deck that were visible from the side door. Although there was no visible path leading from the side door to the deck, the existence of the steps suggests that visitors are welcome to access the deck from that direction. The lilac bushes only lined one side of the deck and serve a decorative function. Thus, under these facts, I conclude that the defendant had no expectation of privacy in his deck.
In Johnston, 150 N.H. at 452, we held that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the curtilage of his home where the curtilage was visible from the road, no shrubs or fences hid the curtilage, there was no “No Trespassing” sign and no gate blocked the entrance to the curtilage. The only distinction between Johnston and the facts of this case is that in Johnston, the curtilage was visible from the road, whereas here, the evidence only supports a finding that the deck was visible from the driveway and the side door. Because the officer could lawfully be in the driveway and at the side door, see Pinkham, 141 N.H. at 190-91,1 discern no meaningful distinction between the defendant’s failure to exhibit an expectation of privacy in Johnston and the facts of this case.