United States v. Johnson - 256 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2001)

Rule:

It is a basic principle of U.S. Const. amend. IV law that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. The presumption of unreasonableness can be overcome, however, when the police confront an exigent circumstance like a fleeing felon. In these situations, the exigent circumstance relieves the police of the obligation of obtaining a warrant. The exigent circumstance does not, however, relieve the police of the need to have probable cause for the search. 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.

Facts:

In an attempt to apprehend another person who was a misdemeanor suspect last seen 30 minutes previously and whose whereabouts were unknown, state sheriff officers broke into defendant Michael Johnson’s fenced and locked residential yard on his rural Washington property without a warrant. While searching his yard, officers smelled marijuana in a detached shed. As a result of this warrantless search, a search warrant was issued and Johnson was subsequently indicted on one count of manufacturing marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Prior to entering a conditional plea of guilty, Johnson filed a motion to suppress the evidence gained as result of the search. The district court denied the defendant’s motion, determining that the search was justified under the hot pursuit and exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. The defendant appealed. 

Issue:

Did the officers have probable cause to enter and search the defendant’s property without warrant?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that the officers did not have probable cause to enter the property, and were not in hot pursuit when they searched the area outside the mushroom shed. According to the court, the pursuing officer's hunch that the suspect whom they had not seen in 30 minutes may be hiding on the defendant’s property was not sufficient to supply probable cause to search the premises. The curtilage issue was remanded to the district court for factual findings and conclusions on whether the shed was in an open field or part of the curtilage, a matter not developed by the district court.