Fourth Amendment shields apartment door handle, court rules

Listen to this article

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently ruled that an apartment door handle and lock are within the curtilage of one’s home and thereby entitled to constitutional protection. In State of Minnesota v. Terrell McNeal, Jr., filed June 10, the court concluded that law enforcement was required to get a search warrant supported by probable cause to swab Terrell McNeal’s door for evidence of drugs.

“The message of the court of appeals is clear,” said Daniel Repka, attorney at Repka Law, who represented McNeal. “Law enforcement must secure probable cause — not reasonable suspicion — to swab the doorknob of a suspect’s residence. The court of appeals’ decision should limit the number of warrantless swabs of people’s doorknobs.”

On March 24, 2022, a member of the Minnesota River Valley Drug Task Force requested a search warrant to collect samples from the outer door handle and lock of McNeal’s apartment in order to detect potential traces of controlled substances. The district court granted the warrant, which was executed by a law enforcement officer on the same day.

The appellant’s apartment was situated on the main level of a secured building, alongside another apartment. Each apartment had its own entrance accessible from an interior communal space. The officer responsible for carrying out the search warrant had acquired the access code to this communal area from a colleague who had obtained it from the building’s landlord. With the code in hand, the officer entered the communal area and proceeded to collect samples from the exterior door handle and lock of the appellant’s apartment using a sterile swab.

After the swab was submitted for analysis, cocaine and MDEA (a controlled substance similar to Ecstasy) were detected. Subsequently, the officers applied for a second search warrant to search McNeal’s apartment. Once inside, officers recovered significant amounts of cash, various controlled substances, multiple firearms, and drug paraphernalia.

McNeal was charged with seven counts regarding possessing and selling controlled substances while in possession of a firearm and receipt of stolen property. Although McNeal sought to suppress the evidence that the officers obtained, the district court concluded that, despite lacking probable cause for the first search warrant, officers did not need it since the door handle and lock were not part of the curtilage of McNeal’s home. Thus, it determined that McNeal had no reasonable expectation of privacy.  It held that the swab was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion, making it a lawful search.

Waiving his right to a jury trial, McNeal was found guilty following a court trial on stipulated evidence. He was sentenced to a presumptive sentence of 48 months in prison.

McNeal argued that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence. He claimed that the district court erred when it decided that officers didn’t need a search warrant to swab his apartment door handle and lock. McNeal maintained that these were within the home’s curtilage and thus protected under the Constitution. He contended that the mistake warranted a reversal because the court found the first search warrant lacked probable cause, making the second search warrant invalid as it was based entirely on the first warrant and the swab evidence.

Before the court was whether the door and doorknob was part of the curtilage of the home. The state argued that it was not.

“If the court looks at the door itself, it prevents people from looking into the home, for example. That doesn’t make the outside of the door curtilage,” stated Susan DeVos, assistant Blue Earth County attorney.

“Doorknobs are often touched by other individuals,” DeVos added. “The neighbor could hang a sign on the door. The landlord could post a notice on the door.”

The court was not persuaded. “[A]partment door handles and locks are primarily used to enter, exit, or exclude others from a home, actions that are reserved to the tenant, the tenant’s invitees, and in limited circumstances, the landlord,” Judge Peter Reyes concluded. “The nature of the apartment door handle and lock’s use weighs heavily towards concluding that they are within the curtilage.”

“Although members of the public and law-enforcement officers generally have an implied license to approach a home, physically knock on the door, and wait briefly to be received, they have no implied license to remove material from the door handle and lock for laboratory testing,” Reyes added.

The court also distinguished this case from State v. Edstrom, where a narcotics-dog sniff in the hallway outside an apartment was deemed not to violate the Fourth Amendment. Unlike the dog sniff, which did not involve physical intrusion, court differentiated the door swab. “[T]he officers here went a step further and collected a sample from a door handle and lock that were physically attached to and indivisible from appellant’s home,” Reyes wrote.

The court held that McNeal’s apartment door handle and lock were within the curtilage of the home protected by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution. As the second search warrant was solely based on details from the first one, which indisputably lacked probable cause, along with evidence gathered during its execution, the court reversed the district court’s decision.

“The most difficult aspect was watching Mr. McNeal remain incarcerated throughout the whole case,” Repka said. “He hasn’t been a free man since his arrest in March of 2022. The district court denied a number of our motions to release Mr. McNeal to treatment before the verdict. The court of appeals’ decision is a resounding victory for Mr. McNeal. But it’s bittersweet, as he’s spent the past two years of his life behind bars fighting this court battle.”