Also known as: implicit licences · implied license · implied licences
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A social permission inferred from ordinary custom that permits members of the public to approach a home by the front path, knock on the door, wait briefly, and then leave. The permission is bounded by spatial, temporal, and purpose limitations drawn from background norms that govern how ordinary visitors behave.
Officers walked a narcotics dog up the steps of Lindsay's walled front patio and directed it to sniff at her door. The dog alerted, supplying probable cause for a later warrant. Because the patio formed part of the curtilage and the officers' investigative purpose exceeded ordinary visitor conduct, the alert resulted from an unlawful search and the evidence was suppressed.
Officers approached Leo's house by the front walk with a chemical-detection dog, then followed a mulched path into a hedged backyard garden abutting the back door. The dog alerted at a bench inside the garden. The officers' deviation from a direct approach to the door for an investigative sniff exceeded the license extended to ordinary visitors, rendering the alert the product of an unconstitutional search.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The license permits a visitor to approach the front door by the normal path, knock promptly, wait briefly, and leave. It is exceeded when officers bring a trained detection dog onto curtilage to explore for evidence rather than to make ordinary contact with an occupant.
No. The scope of the license is measured by objective background social norms that govern how ordinary visitors behave, not by the officers' investigative purpose.
Yes. The physical intrusion by the dog into curtilage constitutes a search. Evidence derived from that search, including a later warrant based on the alert, is subject to suppression under the exclusionary rule.
No. An area remains curtilage when it is intimately tied to the home and used for domestic purposes, even if accessible by an unlocked gate or adjacent to common spaces. The key inquiry is whether officers exceeded the limited license by using a detection dog for investigation.
…right after they had been directly told that they were prohibited from doing so. We concluded that the defendants had an implied license to use the common areas of the building to contact tenants even without "any proof of direct authority"; and therefore, the defendant's "entry" was lawful.[^maj-19] Id. at 639-640. The…