Morgan v. Fairfield County, No. 17-4027 (6th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiffs' home, on a one-acre lot, displayed no-trespassing signs and was not readily visible to neighbors. The back has a second-story balcony, accessible only from inside the house, and not visible from the front; a fence and trees block the views from neighboring houses. The county’s Street Crime Reduction and Apprehension Program (SCRAP) unit received anonymous tips that Plaintiffs were growing marijuana and cooking methamphetamine. SCRAP had conducted a ‘knock and talk’ a year earlier and given Plaintiffs a warning. SCRAP went to the house and, following standard practice, surrounded it before knocking. Officers stood five-to-seven feet from the house and could see inside. Deputy Campbell knocked and spoke with Plaintiff Graf, who shut the door, remaining inside. Meanwhile, an officer in the back noticed marijuana plants growing on the balcony. Campbell opened the door, entered, and brought Plaintiffs outside to wait for a search warrant. Officers found weapons, drugs, and drug paraphernalia. On appeal, the denial of their suppression motion was overturned and their convictions vacated.
After dismissal of the charges, Plaintiffs filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action. The Sixth Circuit reversed its dismissal as to the county and officials but affirmed that individual officers were entitled to qualified immunity. It is well-established that a warrantless entry of the area immediately surrounding the home is presumed unreasonable unless it meets an exception. SCRAP, following official policy, entered that constitutionally-protected area without a warrant and without satisfying any of the narrow exceptions, violating the Fourth Amendment. Because of then-existing Sixth Circuit Fourth Amendment law, however, it was not clearly established that SCRAP could not do what it did. County policy required officers to ignore Constitutional protection of the curtilage.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.