United States v. Perea-Rey
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10941, 680 F.3d 1179, 2012 WL 1948973 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless physical intrusion by law enforcement into the curtilage of a home for purposes of conducting a search is presumptively unreasonable and violates the Fourth Amendment. The 'knock and talk' exception does not apply when an officer's actions are objectively inconsistent with an attempt to initiate a consensual encounter with the occupants.
Facts:
- Border Patrol agents observed Pedro Garcia climb over the U.S.-Mexico border fence.
- Agents followed Garcia as he took a taxi to the home of Heriberto Perea-Rey.
- From the street, Agent Trujillo saw Garcia enter the front yard, knock on the front door, and speak with Perea-Rey.
- Perea-Rey gestured for Garcia to go to the carport on the side of the house, and Garcia walked into the carport.
- Agent Trujillo followed Garcia, bypassing the front door, entering the gated yard, and walking around the side of the house into the carport.
- In the carport, Agent Trujillo confronted and detained both Garcia and Perea-Rey, ordering them to stay put until other agents arrived.
- Perea-Rey refused to consent to a search of his house.
- Agents then pointed guns at the home and ordered everyone inside to come out, which resulted in several undocumented aliens emerging.
Procedural Posture:
- Heriberto Perea-Rey was indicted in federal district court on three counts of harboring undocumented aliens.
- Perea-Rey filed a motion to suppress evidence of the aliens, arguing it was obtained through an illegal warrantless search.
- The district court held that the carport was within the curtilage of the home but denied the motion to suppress, finding no reasonable expectation of privacy.
- The court granted the motion to suppress evidence found inside the home after the initial encounter.
- Perea-Rey entered a conditional guilty plea to one count, preserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
- Perea-Rey (appellant) appealed the district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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 law enforcement officer's warrantless physical entry into the curtilage of a home, bypassing the front door and immediately detaining an individual, constitute an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Wardlaw, Circuit Judge
Yes, the agent's actions constituted an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. A warrantless physical trespass by the government into the curtilage of a home is a Fourth Amendment search and is presumptively unreasonable. The court determined the carport was within the curtilage by applying the four factors from United States v. Dunn. The district court erred by conflating the ability to observe the curtilage with the right to enter it; the common-law trespass test for a search was not replaced by the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' test from Katz, but was instead supplemented by it. Furthermore, the 'knock and talk' exception to the warrant requirement does not justify the agent's entry because his actions—bypassing the front door where a visitor would be expected and immediately detaining Perea-Rey without attempting a consensual conversation—were objectively inconsistent with a genuine attempt to initiate such contact. Because the initial entry and detention were unconstitutional, the evidence obtained as a result must be suppressed.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the trespass-based theory of the Fourth Amendment search, as revived by the Supreme Court in United States v. Jones. It clarifies that a physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area like the curtilage is a search, regardless of whether the area is visible from a public vantage point. The ruling also narrows the scope of the 'knock and talk' exception, shifting the analysis from the officer's subjective intent to an objective evaluation of whether their actions are consistent with those of a regular visitor. This holding limits law enforcement's ability to use the 'knock and talk' doctrine as a pretext for conducting warrantless exploratory searches of a home's curtilage.
