# State v. Kitchen

> North Dakota Supreme Court · January 20, 1998 · 572 N.W.2d 106

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9584129

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Robert KITCHEN, Defendant and Appellant; STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Becky FRIEZ, N/K/A Becky Kitchen, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** North Dakota Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 20, 1998
- **Citations:** 572 N.W.2d 106; 1997 ND 241
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Meschke
- **Judges:** Neumann, Vande Walle, Maring, Sandstrom, Meschke
- **Cited by:** 54 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9584129

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, when police officers knocked on the outer door of a home, and receiving no response, opened the outer door and walked approximately six feet to an inner door, the officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the outer door was “impliedly open to at least…
- concluding, even if the area was curtilage, it was reasonable for the police to enter a vestibule—like area, through a screen door, in order to knock on the interior door which was the main entryway to the house
- holding we defer to a trial court’s findings of fact in the disposition of a motion to suppress, but whether findings of fact meet a legal standard, is a question of law which is fully reviewable
- discussing State v. Crider, 341 A.2d 1 (Me.1975)

## Opinion text

MESCHKE, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 33] The Fourth Amendment guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Section 8 in Article I of our North Dakota Constitution also secures people’s houses against unreasonable searches.
[¶ 34] Residents of a house clearly have a justified expectation of privacy against unreasonable intrusion. An uneonsented police entry into a home, without a warrant, is an unreasonable search. See Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 98 , 110 S.Ct. 1684, 1689 , 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990)(“To hold that an overnight guest has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his host’s home merely recognizes the everyday expectations of privacy that we all share.”). These constitutional protections extend to “occupants of flimsily constructed dwellings with unobstructed window or other openings directly on public lands, streets, or sidewalks, who failed to lock their doors to bar entrance.” United States v. Moss, 963 F.2d 673, 676 (4th Cir.1992). As State v. Crider, 341 A.2d 1, 4 (Me.1975), once explained, the “mere presence of a hallway in the interior of a single family dwelling, without more, is not in itself an invitation to the public to enter.” Normally, the entryway is an integral part of a home.
[¶ 35] Kitchens lived in a single-family basement home with an attached entryway. The door into the entryway was a metal storm/screen door with a large glass window. The entryway had steps downward to the inner doorway. The window in the outer door was not curtained, but the door was lockable and the only button for a doorbell was there. To me, a lockable door and a doorbell button clearly mark the threshold, the point of entering a home.
[¶36] In this case, the officers rang the doorbell, waited momentarily, then opened the unlocked outer door and went into the entryway to knock on the inner door. In my opinion, they crossed the threshold of a private home. Since they had neither consent nor a warrant, I believe their entry was unreasonable, and the evidence they then discovered was unreasonably obtained.
The officer, at the time of his entry into the hallway, had neither warrant for an arrest or search, nor did he have probable cause for the same. His entry into an integral part of a private dwelling, which in the light of the circumstances of this record could not be viewed as reasonably accessible to the public generally, constituted a trespass.
Crider, 341 A.2d at 4-5 . Sadly, many an urban resident today must lock their outer door to secure privacy, but I hate to think Dakotans need to do so, yet. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
[¶ 37] Herbert L. Meschke

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9584129. Public record. Not legal advice.