Christopher J. Covey et al. v. Assessor of Ohio County et al.

Warrantless Entry on Curtilage Violates 4th Amendment
U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, No. 13-1227
Monday, January 26, 2015

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects both homes and their curtilage—the land immediately surrounding and associated” with the home—from unreasonable government intrusions. Here, an assessor for Ohio County in West Virginia went to the Coveys’ property for tax purposes. He entered the property despite the “No Trespassing” signs, violating the assessors’ standard visitation procedures, opened the front door to leave a pamphlet inside, and searched the home’s curtilage, including a walk-out basement patio. There, he found marijuana, and he reported this discovery to the police. Officers later entered the property, detained Mr. Covey, who had returned home, and searched the patio and opened the basement doors to take photographs. Officers then obtained a warrant to search the house.

Thereafter, the Coveys brought a 1983 claim against numerous defendants, including the county, the assessor, and specific police officers, alleging that the search of the curtilage was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment.

The Circuit Court determined that the Coveys’ complaint alleged sufficient facts to substantive their 1983 claim. The curtilage of a home is protected to the same extent as the home itself because the area around the home is “intimately linked” and, therefore, individuals have a heightened privacy expectation there. Therefore, to search the curtilage, law enforcement must have probable cause, and a warrantless search is presumed to be unreasonable in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

There are also exceptions that allow law enforcement to conduct warrantless searches, and the officers argued application of the “knock-and-talk” exception, which allows officers to, essentially, do what any visitor might do: approach a home by a “front path” and knock on the front door, or by-pass the front door if the circumstances reasonably indicate the homeowner might be found elsewhere. The Court found that if, as the Coveys contended, the officers did not see Mr. Covey on the curtilage until after they entered and began to look around, this exception would not protect them.