State v. Roper

Under State v. Dixson, land outside the curtilage requires signs or barriers to express an intent to keep unwanted visitors out.

The State appealed the trial court's decision to allow the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Defendant was charged with possessing and manufacturing marijuana and methamphetamine, and as a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing the search was illegal because the officers trespassed when they entered onto his property. The State argued the search was not illegal because the Defendant did not manifest a clear intent to exclude visitors from his driveway. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court, holding the trial court had sufficient reasoning to grant the motion to suppress. Under State v. Dixson, land outside the curtilage requires signs or barriers to express an intent to keep unwanted visitors out. The Defendant had a fence around the boundary of his property and signs posted with no trespassing, therefore satisfying the intent requirement. Affirmed.