Fourth Circuit: Apartment Front Door Was Not Curtilage

In U.S. v. Johnson, 148 F.4th 287 (4th Cir. 2025) (summarized here), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently rejected a Fourth Amendment challenge to a canine sniff at the front door of the defendant’s apartment. My colleagues Jeff Welty and Shea Denning have blogged about the issue of curtilage and multi-unit dwellings like apartment buildings in the past (here, here, and here), but Johnson is a good refresher on those principles. Read on for the details. Curtilage Basics. Broadly speaking, curtilage is the area in the immediate proximity of a residence that can be considered part of the home. For Fourth Amendment purposes, if the area qualifies as curtilage, it is protected from warrantless search to the same extent as the home itself. “When a law enforcement officer physically intrudes on the curtilage to gather evidence of a crime, a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment occurs.” Collins v. Virginia, 584 U.S. 586, 593 (2018) (internal citation omitted). Areas in the immediate vicinity of the home and closely connected to the home like driveways, porches, and patios will generally qualify as curtilage, but questions arise about where to draw the line, especially in contexts other than stand-alone residences. In U.S. v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 301 (1987), the Supreme Court articulated a four-factor balancing test for determining whether an area qualifies as Fourth Amendment curtilage. Under Dunn, a court must consider “the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the [...]