Police Enter a Screened-in Porch Without Permission After They Have Been Confronted

My question involves search and seizure law in the State of South Carolina.

Background:

While my parents were out of town, I had a few people over to drink, dance, and be merry. At approximately 0200 hours, my friend and I are speaking to one another on the back porch (no music playing) when I hear someone attempting to open the gate to the backyard. I immediately stand up and approach the door to the screened-in porch (startled at the unexpected intruder) at which point two flashlights turn on and the men identify themselves as police officers being called on a noise complaint.

I immediately attempt to politely dispel any problems with their being at my home by stating that all noise would be reduced and that their presence was no longer needed. The officers approached the screen porch and the lead officer commanded me to "Calm down and take a seat." Before I followed his command, the lead officer opened the porch door, stepped up onto the porch, looked past me (noticing an acrylic bowl sitting on the table behind me) and asked "Whose marijuana pipe is that?"

At this point I took a seat, and while the lead officer looked over my friend and I, the other officer went inside my home and rounded up the three friends inside to bring them all on the back porch. From that point on, a full search of our persons was conducted and two SCHED I drugs were found in a friend's purse (arrested), I was written a ticket for PURCHASING BEER OR WINE FOR PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF 21 (SECTION 61-4-80.), and two minors were cited for being in possession of alcohol.

My questions are as follows:

1. I am under the impression that a screened-in porch is considered 'curtilage' of my home. If this is the case, what right did the police have in letting themselves onto my porch (at which point illegal activity was discovered) when they were confronted by one of the householders prior to "porch entry"? I'm under the impression that the police had no right to further enter into my property after contact was made with them, and the reason for their being there was addressed.

2. Was their (the police's) behavior at all inappropriate (i.e. useful to mention to a lawyer) in that they did not attempt to knock on the front door (which has a cement path leading to it from the driveway in which their cruiser was parked) and instead made a B-line to the gate to the backyard (which has no path leading to it)? Like I said, my friend and I were speaking to one another without music playing. Can they come into the back in an attempt to make contact with an occupant simply because they hear voices emanating from the back? How about if they DIDN'T hear us? Does the fact that the gate has a latch (that the police reached across and lifted) with a built-in "pin and tumbler" lock affect any of this?

What I DID do: confront the officers from inside the screened-in porch -- stood in-front of the door to the porch and addressed their reason for being there -- responded politely, but urgently, to them before they entered the porch

What I DIDN'T do: give them permission to enter the porch -- open the door to the porch as they approached it -- act threateningly towards them which would have warranted a command to "sit down" -- ask them to leave

After the pipe was found, the officer then attempted to explain his reasoning for telling me to "sit down" when they first arrived. His reasons included : 1. My agitated nature (albeit, polite) and 2. The "Rage Against the Machine" shirt I was wearing gave him the impression that I might "...rage against (his) machine!"

I understand that the police must protect themselves and watch out for their own safety (and secure the area to protect themselves), but my agitated nature was due entirely to the fact that someone was attempting to enter my backyard in the middle of the night. This was NOT a party and I had no expected guests arriving later... what reasonable person WOULDN'T be frightened at any intruder attempting to enter their yard at night? If they were so concerned about safety (at a home that costs ~$200,000), why didn't they knock on the front door? Throughout the ordeal, the police made multiple comments about the possibility of us having guns stashed either in the house or outside the house and that they had to make all the moves, including, searching purses for ID, getting a pair of shoes from inside, and searching upstairs and downstairs rooms for God-knows-what.

All in all, was the police's entry onto my porch, and subsequent discovery of illegal activity, legal?

Thank you very much for any and all help provided. This whole ordeal left me and everyone involved feeling completely violated.

The police do have the right to investigate a reported crime.

The bowl was in plain sight.

Your "there is no crime here" speech at two a.m. wouldn't have discouraged any cop on the planet from investigating... not to mention the smell of pot.

I certainly feel that this was much like if they had knocked on the front door, stepped inside my home, and seen a pipe. The bowl was in plain sight only from within the porch which is elevated from the yard they entered. Still nada?

Quote:

---

Quoting Ragingmachine

---

I certainly feel that this was much like if they had knocked on the front door, stepped inside my home, and seen a pipe. The bowl was in plain sight only from within the porch which is elevated from the yard they entered. Still nada?

---

It would be worth talking with your attorney. But if you were so loud you couldn't hear a cop banging on your front door, that is not a good sign.

We certainly were not. Music WAS being played on the inside of the house, but at a reasonable volume. Not to mention there is a doorbell which would have caused our miniature schnauzer to bark vehemently and the 3 inside would have heard. The police mentioned that they had to get a description of the house because they could not hear anything from the street. Trust me, no attempt was made.

Thank you for your help. The attorney will probably be our best bet at this point.

I suspect it is also possible that when you spoke to the officers they could smell the alcohol and/or marijuana in the air. Depending on the law in SC and your apparent age (if you appeared to be under 21) that might be sufficient to justify further investigation.

Your attorney will have access to the police reports and can best evaluate whether or not a suppression motion is likely to be successful or not.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

I suspect it is also possible that when you spoke to the officers they could smell the alcohol and/or marijuana in the air. Depending on the law in SC and your apparent age (if you appeared to be under 21) that might be sufficient to justify further investigation.

Your attorney will have access to the police reports and can best evaluate whether or not a suppression motion is likely to be successful or not.

---

I am 23, but I've gotten "18" and "19" multiple times (baby-face be damned). They did not state that they smelled anything, however if they did, would it be mentioned in the police report? If not mentioned in the report, is it impossible for them to say otherwise in terms of justifying their entrance (i.e. in court, to a judge, etc)?

They moved so quickly from the gate and the 20 feet onto the porch that it would have been hard for them to legitimately assess anything, ESPECIALLY amongst each other. They basically filed in, stopping only to open the gate. I was speaking to them as they approached (3 - 5 seconds, tops) and told to sit down when they reached the door and opened it.

By the way, would images, video, or testimony of any kind be useful to the attorney?

Quote:

---

Quoting Ragingmachine

---

I am 23, but I've gotten "18" and "19" multiple times (baby-face be damned). They did not state that they smelled anything, however if they did, would it be mentioned in the police report? If not mentioned in the report, is it impossible for them to say otherwise in terms of justifying their entrance (i.e. in court, to a judge, etc)?

---

They would not have to tell you they smelled anything, but their observations (including what they smelled) should be in the report. If not, and they testify to it later, a good defense attorney MIGHT be able to capitalize on that. But, if for some reason the officers did not feel it was relevant at the time, it may not be in the report. If they used the odor or sights and sounds as probable cause to enter the porch (assuming they need to in your state) then it should be in the report.

Quote:

---

They moved so quickly from the gate and the 20 feet onto the porch that it would have been hard for them to legitimately assess anything, ESPECIALLY amongst each other. They basically filed in, stopping only to open the gate.

---

Then they may also make an argument they were going to the front door.

At this point everything is hypothesis. Your attorney will get the report and will know what he can do about ... if anything.

Quote:

---

By the way, would images, video, or testimony of any kind be useful to the attorney?

---

Provided the video supports your contention, great. But, if the video shows underage drinking and/or drugs, then not a goo didea. And you can bet that if you produce video of the police entry, they will likely ask for video of earlier events that might support reports of alcohol or drug use (assuming there were).

In the end, you do not know what the police knew or believed when they arrived. That is why the report will be important to review. Your attorney can take what they have to say and assess it for flaws that can be exploited, or strengths that he needs to mitigate ... or negotiate a plea deal to avoid trial.

Thank you, cdwjava.

I have a good feeling on this one. The officers acted unprofessionally and discourteously when they were shown the utmost respect. One was a rookie on a training run with a "SGT." that dipped pouch tobacco while intermittently spitting in the bushes off the porch during the whole incident. My arrested friend was paraded and bragged about around the station because of the drugs found on her in response to a noise complaint. They think we're helpless. We'll show them!

Semi-related question: Will the SGT. be standing over the rookie's shoulder while he fills out the report? Will they BOTH fill one out? If they do, do they do it together?

Quote:

---

Quoting Ragingmachine

---

Semi-related question: Will the SGT. be standing over the rookie's shoulder while he fills out the report? Will they BOTH fill one out? If they do, do they do it together?

---

I suspect the trainee will write a report that will be reviewed by the Sgt. It is not too likely that the Sgt. will complete a separate report, but that will be up to him, and whether it is the policy and practice of the agency to do so. If the Sgt. did not do something significant, then it is unlikely that he would be required to write his own report in an incident such as this.

And, of course, the best way to avoid getting busted for drugs or underage drinking is not to engage in either. Right or wrong, the officers would not have been able to make an arrest had there not been some other laws being broken.

"Curtilage" as you describe is NOT an enclosed porch, that IS the HOME itself, IMO. So the issue of curtilage is moot, IMO.

Entering the gate is more in line with the term.

Now, assuming it is the home itself, a warrantless entry must be based on exigent or emergency circumstances.

The US SC has never ruled a warrantless entry can be based on possible destruction of evidence if the crime is minor/misdmeanor, as far as I know. Now, if he saw a pound of heroin on the coffee table, if a warrantless entry was not made to keep the evidence from being destroyed/moved, it may be flushed/moved.

If they had a reasonable belief minors were drinking, that could provide exigency to remove them from the premises, as alcohol poisoning can come on quickly to a young person, metabolically speaking.

Although the Exclusionary rule is not absolute in nature, it will bend only if the end result affects society, generally, see Michigan v. Hudson, US SC, 2006.

Yes, an Attorney needs to be consulted, as your state may afford greater ER protection also, etc. Warrantless entry law is complex in nature at times.