Summary
The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that the officers lacked probable cause to enter and search Michael Johnson's property while pursuing a misdemeanor suspect and that the hot-pursuit and exigent-circumstances exceptions did not justify the warrantless intrusion. The court reversed the district court on the warrant-requirement issue and remanded for factual findings on whether the searched mushroom shed was within the home's curtilage.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the officers had probable cause to enter and search Johnson's property while looking for a fleeing misdemeanor suspect whose location was unknown.
- Whether the hot-pursuit or exigent-circumstances exceptions justified the warrantless entry and search.
- Whether the area outside Johnson's mushroom shed was within the protected curtilage of his home.
- What standard of appellate review applies to a curtilage determination under Ornelas v. United States.
Holdings
- The officers lacked probable cause to search Johnson's property because their decision to enter was based only on an officer's unsupported gut feeling that Smith might be there, not on objective facts connecting Smith to the property.
- The warrantless entry was not justified by hot pursuit or exigent circumstances because the officers' pursuit was not immediate and continuous, the suspect's location was unknown, and the underlying offenses were misdemeanors.
- The case must be remanded for the district court to make factual findings and conclusions concerning whether the searched area outside the mushroom shed was within the curtilage of Johnson's home.
- A different majority of the en banc court concluded that the application of the curtilage standard to established historical facts is reviewed de novo under Ornelas, but another majority characterized the issue as unresolved because the district court had made no curtilage determination.
Key quotations
“As a result, when the government relies on the exigent circumstances exception, it still must satisfy two requirements: first, the government must prove that the officer had probable cause to search the house; and second, the government must prove that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless intrusion.” (905)
“There is simply no way to transform Officer Kading's "gut feeling" into "probable cause."” (908)
“The half-hour time period, during which the officers received no new information about where Smith had gone, turned the pursuit from luke warm to ice cold.” (909)
Factual background
Deputies pursued Steven Dustin Smith, who was wanted on misdemeanor warrants, after he fled into a wooded rural area and disappeared from view. After waiting approximately thirty minutes and receiving no new information about Smith's location, deputies forced entry through Johnson's locked gate and searched his fenced property. Near a locked mushroom shed, an officer smelled marijuana; a later warrant led to the seizure of 553 marijuana plants and Johnson's indictment for manufacturing marijuana.
Procedural history
State sheriff's officers entered Johnson's fenced property without a warrant while searching for a misdemeanor suspect, smelled marijuana near a detached shed, and used that information to obtain a state search warrant. Marijuana plants were seized and Johnson was federally indicted. The district court denied suppression on hot-pursuit and exigent-circumstances grounds. The en banc court reversed on probable cause and remanded for the district court to determine whether the searched area was within the curtilage.
Remand instructions
The district court must determine whether the searched area outside the mushroom shed was within the curtilage, make the necessary factual findings and legal conclusions, and address any other issues necessary to disposition. The appellate panel retained jurisdiction over any further appeal.