State v. Basurto
Citation | 807 P.2d 162,15 Kan.App.2d 264 |
Decision Date | 01 March 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 64444,64444 |
Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Miguel A. BASURTO, Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Kansas |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The protection of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to the residence of a defendant and to all other structures, buildings, or vehicles within the "curtilage" of that residence.
2. A search warrant which describes a specific residence as the place to be searched authorizes the search of that residence and any other structures, buildings, or vehicles located within the "curtilage" of the specifically described residence.
3. The failure of the search warrant to use the word "premises" in connection with the description of the residence does not, under the facts presented, render the search of an outbuilding within the "curtilage" of the residence outside the scope of the warrant.
Jack Focht, of Focht, Hughey, Hund & Calvert, Wichita, for appellant.
Debra Byrd Wagner, Asst. Dist. Atty., Nola Foulston, Dist. Atty., and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before LEWIS, P.J., and ELLIOTT and RULON, JJ.
This is a direct appeal by the defendant from his convictions of the crimes of possession of marijuana with intent to sell and possession of cocaine with intent to sell.
The principal issue on this appeal is whether evidence seized under a search warrant should be suppressed. Specifically, the question is whether the officers exceeded the scope of the warrant in searching a shed in the back of the defendant's dwelling.
There appears to be no question as to the propriety of the issuance of the search warrant. The only question at issue is the permissible scope of the search permitted under the warrant. The search warrant applied for and obtained in the instant matter described the place to be searched as follows:
The warrant further described the items for which a search was to be made and then stated that those items "are located in or upon the above described persons, places, things, or means of conveyance."
The execution of the warrant took over two hours. However, this appeal involves only the legality of the search of an unattached shed or outbuilding located in the back of defendant's residence. We shall, therefore, limit our recitation of the facts to those necessary to deal with the issue presented.
The police officers, armed with the search warrant described above, first secured and then searched the defendant's residence located at 2528 North Mascot. The search of the residence itself is not at issue and was apparently routinely conducted. However, during or shortly after the residence was searched, it appears that the officers viewed the contents of an unattached shed located in the back of the residence. The shed contained what appeared to be a quantity of cocaine.
At this point, the officers appear to have been uncertain as to how to proceed. They seem to have questioned their authority to search the shed and seize the contraband items under the warrant in their possession. As a result, they first attempted to obtain a written waiver consenting to the search from the defendant's wife, who was present in the residence. Initially, the wife orally consented to the search but, after a written waiver was prepared, she refused to sign it. The officers then sought and obtained from the defendant a written waiver consenting to the search of the shed. After this was in hand, the shed was searched and a quantity of cocaine was removed.
The defendant argues that the search of the unattached shed was not authorized by the terms of the search warrant described above, which specifically only describes the residence of the defendant. As a result, defendant argues that the search of the shed was outside the scope of the warrant and that the items seized from the shed should be suppressed. We disagree.
We also note that the defendant argues that his consent to the search of the shed was illegally obtained. As will be seen, we do not reach that issue, although we tend to agree with the defendant's arguments in that regard.
Historically, the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures has extended not only to the residence of a suspect, but also to an area surrounding the residence, which is referred to as the "curtilage." See United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 300, 107 S.Ct. 1134, 1139, 94 L.Ed.2d 326, reh. denied 481 U.S. 1024, 107 S.Ct. 1913, 95 L.Ed.2d 519 (1987); Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984); Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 59, 68 L.Ed. 898, 44 S.Ct. 445, 446, 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924). In Dunn, the Supreme Court of the United States points out the historical basis for the curtilage concept as follows: "The curtilage concept originated at common law to extend to the area immediately surrounding a dwelling house the same protection under the law of burglary as was afforded the house itself." 480 U.S. at 300, 107 S.Ct. at 1139.
Since the "curtilage" is afforded the same Fourth Amendment protection as the residence itself, it has been generally held that a search warrant describing only the residence will authorize a search of any buildings or vehicles within the "curtilage" even though they are not specifically described in the warrant. In 2 LaFave on Search and Seizures § 4.10, pp. 312-13 (2d ed. 1987), the general rule is stated:
In State v. Vicars, 207 Neb. 325, 330, 299 N.W.2d 421 (1980), the Supreme Court of Nebraska dealt with the question of whether a search warrant describing the defendant's residence authorized the search of a shed located on the defendant's property. In answering that question in the affirmative, the Nebraska Supreme Court stated:
207 Neb. at 330-31, 299 N.W.2d 421.
In Kansas, we appear to have adopted the rules enunciated above. In State v. Ogden, 210 Kan. 510, 519, 502 P.2d 654 (1972), a search warrant directed the search of a "white frame residence" located at 1350 South Gordon, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Operating under that warrant, evidence was seized from a trash can in the rear of the yard at 1350 South Gordon. The defendant argued that the search warrant authorized only the search of the residence described and that the search of the trash can exceeded the scope of the warrant. Our Supreme...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Fisher
...which historically the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures has been extended. See State v. Basurto, 15 Kan.App.2d 264, 266, 807 P.2d 162, aff'd 249 Kan. 584, 821 P.2d 327 (1991) (citing United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 300, 107 S.Ct. 1134, 94 L.Ed.2d 3......
-
United States v. Hibbs
...search of “white frame residence” allowed officers to search trash can located at the rear of the yard); State v. Basurto, 15 Kan.App.2d 264, 268–69, 807 P.2d 162 (1991); People v. McGhee, 255 Mich.App. 623, 662 N.W.2d 777 (2003); State v. Potter, 72 S.W.3d 307, 314–15 (Mo.App.2002); State ......
-
Walls v. State
...authorized search of a tent in the backyard), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 847, 121 S.Ct. 118, 148 L.Ed.2d 74 (2000); State v. Basurto, 15 Kan.App.2d 264, 269, 807 P.2d 162 (stating that there "appears to be little doubt that a search warrant which describes only the residence of defendant will a......
-
State v. Patterson
...thereof.”] ). The term premises, therefore, describes a single unit of ownership—i.e., the whole of the property.In State v. Basurto, 15 Kan.App.2d 264, 807 P.2d 162, aff'd 249 Kan. 584, 821 P.2d 327 (1991), a Court of Appeals case this court adopted and affirmed, the court was confronted w......