“[A]t the very core” of the Fourth Amendment “stands the right of [an individual] to retreat into his [or her] own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” (Silverman v. United States (1961) 365 U.S. 505, 511.) This protection against unreasonable search and seizure, that is, a search without a warrant, extends to the curtilage of the home. Curtilage is the areas immediately surrounding a home, such as porches, and other protected spaces where individuals maintain significant privacy expectations. Law enforcement searches of curtilage has been challenged, defined, and redefined by our courts for over 150 years.
Even in cases where there is a valid search warrant, a search of a home’s curtilage can render the search unlawful. The U.S. Supreme Court in the case Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) held that after law enforcement brought a drug-sniffing dog to the front porch of a house – that dog immediately alerting to drugs, prompting law enforcement to obtain a search warrant for the home—resulted in an unlawful search even though a warrant was obtained. The evidence (drugsthat were discovered in the search upon warrant) was suppressed because taking the dog to the front porch to sniff for drugs was a violation of the “physical trespass test.” In other words, the court held that the dog sniff itself was a search, and because it occurred on the curtilage of the home, it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The upshot of the Jardines case is that law enforcements physical invasion into protected areas can itself trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny, regardless of whether there’s an expectation of privacy.
Recently, the Ninth Circuit in the case Tran & Chong v. United States (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2024) 112 F.4th 848, relied upon Jardines when it held that an unlawful search took place when law enforcement entered a residential driveway and peered into the garage on the property.
