Christopher Covey v. Assessor of Ohio County
2015 WL 309598, 777 F.3d 186, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1113 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless search of a home's curtilage is presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The 'knock-and-talk' exception does not permit law enforcement to bypass the front door and conduct a general search of the curtilage unless circumstances reasonably indicate the homeowner might be found elsewhere on the property, and this observation is made from a lawful vantage point.
Facts:
- Cristopher and Lela Covey lived in a private, rural home surrounded by trees with two 'No Trespassing' signs posted along their driveway.
- On October 21, 2009, Roy Crews, a county tax assessor, entered the property despite the signs to collect assessment data.
- Finding no one home, Crews opened the front door to leave a pamphlet, then proceeded to search the home's curtilage, including a walk-out basement patio.
- On the patio, Crews discovered marijuana and reported his finding to the county sheriff.
- Later that day, Corporal Alex Espejo and DEA Special Agent Robert Manchas arrived at the Covey residence to investigate.
- The officers proceeded directly onto the walk-out basement patio area, part of the home's curtilage.
- According to the complaint, it was only after entering the patio area that the officers encountered Cristopher Covey at his workbench.
- The officers then seized Mr. Covey and conducted further searches of the patio area.
Procedural Posture:
- Cristopher and Lela Covey filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens in the U.S. District Court against several government officials, alleging Fourth Amendment violations.
- The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
- A magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation advising the district court to dismiss all federal claims.
- The district court judge adopted the magistrate's recommendation and granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the case.
- The Coveys, as appellants, appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a government official's warrantless entry into the curtilage of a home, without an invitation or a reasonable belief formed from a lawful vantage point that the resident is present in that area, constitute an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Floyd
Yes, such a warrantless entry constitutes an unreasonable search. The Fourth Amendment provides strong protection for a home's curtilage, and a warrantless search of this area is presumptively unreasonable. The 'knock-and-talk' exception, which allows officers to approach a home like a private citizen, is limited to the path a typical visitor would take. It does not grant a license to conduct a general exploratory search of other areas of the curtilage. Construing the complaint in the light most favorable to the Coveys, the officers entered the curtilage before observing Mr. Covey, making their entry an unconstitutional search. Similarly, the tax assessor's search was unreasonable because he exceeded his authority by ignoring 'No Trespassing' signs and a state regulation, and then physically intruded into both the curtilage and the home itself, areas with the highest expectation of privacy.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the sanctity of the home's curtilage under the Fourth Amendment and clarifies the narrow scope of the 'knock-and-talk' exception. It serves as a significant procedural reminder to lower courts about the strict standard for evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, mandating that the plaintiff's factual allegations be accepted as true. The ruling prevents law enforcement from using the 'knock-and-talk' doctrine as a pretext to conduct speculative, warrantless searches around a residence, thereby reinforcing the warrant requirement for searches of constitutionally protected areas.
