United States v. Wells, No. 10-2638 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was indicted for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and moved to suppress evidence obtained during two searches of an outbuilding behind his house. At issue was whether the district court erred in concluding that defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in any part of the unpaved driveway leading up to the outbuilding. The court held that the officers were standing in an area in which defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy, i.e., the curtilage of his home, when they observed the lighted outbuilding. The court also held that the officers' entry onto the curtilage was not constitutionally reasonable and, in this case, entry into the area could not be justified as a "knock-and-talk." Therefore, the order suppressing the evidence was affirmed.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court did not err in finding defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in an unpaved driveway area extending past the rear of his home as the area was part of his home's curtilage; as a result, when the officers observed a lighted outbuilding from the driveway, they were standing in an area in which defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy; officers' entry onto the curtilage was not constitutionally reasonable; entry onto the area did not fall within the "knock-and-talk" rule; as a result, the district court did not err in suppressing the search.
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.