ILNews

COA: Deputy not justified in entering backyard

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A sheriff’s deputy who tried to serve a protective order was not justified in entering the backyard of a home after no one answered knocking at the front door, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled. The deputy saw marijuana in the backyard, leading to the homeowner’s arrest.

Hendricks County Sheriff’s Deputy Robert Butterfield attempted to serve the protective order at the home of Duane Jadrich in Brownsburg. There were several signs on the property saying to use the front door, including on a closed gate on a fence. Butterfield went through the gate to the backyard and knocked on that door after no one answered. He saw what he thought was marijuana growing in the backyard.

Eventually homeowner Jadrich and his wife responded to knocking on a window and allowed the deputies inside, where they found marijuana in a smoking pipe. Jadrich was arrested and charged with drug offenses. He filed a motion to suppress, which was denied, and he was convicted of two misdemeanor charges.

On appeal in Duane Jadrich v. State of Indiana, 32A04-1302-CR-67, Jadrich argued that Butterfield conducted an unconstitutional warrantless search of his property. The Court of Appeals agreed and reversed his convictions.

The appellate court noted that the route to Jadrich’s back door is not one that visitors would reasonably view as open to the public. The judges looked to other jurisdictions to determine whether a police entry into curtilage or approach to a secondary entrance was justified.

“In summary, seemingly unanimous authority requires some justification before a police officer may permissibly venture into spaces not normally used by the public, such as approaching a secondary entrance to a house located in the curtilage,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote. “In some cases, this entry is justified by a reasonable belief that a person may be contacted by such entry, and in others by observations that indicate possible criminal activity. The record contains no evidence that indicates such justifications in this case, as Deputy Butterfield did not observe or hear anything before entering Jadrich’s back yard that would have led a reasonable person to believe that any criminal activity was afoot, anybody was in the back yard, or knocking on the back door was more likely to result in contact with anyone inside the house.”

“The State has failed to convince us that Deputy Butterfield’s purpose for being at Jadrich’s home — to serve a civil protective order — justified his foray into the back yard,” he continued. “The State points to no authority suggesting that the service of protective orders is a purpose that excuses police entry into areas that are otherwise constitutionally protected and off-limits.”

ADVERTISEMENT

  • BUT ...
    But the NSA can use his laptop video to spy on him, can listen to his telephone conversations and can take pix of his property from any angle without the need for oversite?
  • "Cartilage"
    The word cartilage appears twice in your article. The word is "curtilage," an old common law property term.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT