We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.
  • Celebrating 20 Years of Training Excellence 2004-2024

Trespass Theory of Fourth Amendment

A recent question was posed to the author with this set of facts:

Hundreds of images of child pornography (CP) are being downloaded to multiple Internet Protocol (IP) addresses on one street. It is clear to the officers that at least a few homes have unsecured wireless and someone is downloading CP using their wifi. The question is can the officers use an investigative tool, functionally equivalent to a divining rod, to go on the different properties to determine which residence is actively downloading the images. Is this a problem?

Trespass Theory to Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence

Remember U.S. v. Jones (2012) 565 U.S. 400, the GPS case that found attaching a tracker to suspect’s vehicle was a trespass to personal property and thus required a warrant? This case found a new set of police conduct that was violative of the Fourth Amendment. If an officer trespasses in an effort to obtain evidence for a criminal prosecution that evidence is illegally obtained. In this case the act of attaching the tracker was found to be a trespass.

The US Supreme Court expanded the trespass theory to a residence in Florida v. Jardines (2013) 569 U.S. 1. In that case the officers took an investigative tool, a drug sniffing dog, up to the front door of the house to sniff for a marijuana grow. The court held that by taking the dog to the front door to collect evidence the officers trespassed on the property. The court stated that while homeowners generally consent to people approaching their front door, homeowners do not impliedly allow individuals to approach the curtilage of the residence to search for evidence. The court analogized the implied consent an owner gives to a police officer to approach to a front door of a residence to that of a trick-or-treater or a girl approaching to sell girl scout cookies.


Similar scenarios have come up in Texas and Pennsylvania. In the Texas case the officers approached a residence with a similar device, they went to the front door of the residence with the device. Unfortunately, they knew from the sidewalk which residence was actively downloading but didn’t write that information in the affidavit. All of the evidence was suppressed the court holding the moment they entered the property with the investigatory tool they were in violation of the Fourth Amendment. In Pennsylvania, an officer had an investigatory tool on a common sidewalk in a condominium complex. The court held there that because the officer never left the common area the actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

The take away from these cases is that if you want to use an investigative tool it is clear that the moment you step off of a public access point with that tool you violate the Fourth Amendment. The Jardines case had the effect of extending the curtilage of the house to the property line when officers are attempting to obtain evidence using an investigative tool.


  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • This was, by far and away the best training I have received in 15 plus years of Law Enforcement. The instructors are experienced, engaging, articulate, and very entertaining. I will be recommending this training to multiple agencies.

    —Mark Paynter, Oregon DOC
  • This training provided the useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS
  • Incredible training with amazing real world instruction. I have been taking law enforcement classes for over 30 years and by far this is the best presented and most useful.

    —Det. Brian Dale, Portland Police Bureau
  • This training by far has been the most informative and most effective I've attended. The instructors engaged the students in a manner that made me want to speak my opinion, ask questions, and participate.

    —Julio Ibarra, Merced County Sheriff’s Office
  • Your training gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department
  • It not often that you go to a training that you really, really want to pay attention to. Because of the high quality information and style of presentation, I knew that if I looked away I was going to miss out.

    —Quinten Graves, Oregon State Police
  • Effective teaching teams! The presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda
  • Your training has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department
  • The information presented was highly relevant to my job and was presented in a manner that was organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department