Bradford, J.
In the early morning hours of August 7, 2011, which was a Sunday, Deputy Butterfield attempted to serve a protective order4 at 8055 North State Road 267 in Brownsburg. A tree along the driveway to the property bore a sign that read, “please use front door only!!!” Appellant’s App. p. 20. Deputy Butterfield approached the front door and knocked several times with no response. Deputy Butterfield then walked to the back of the residence. A garage door near the backyard area bore a sign that read, “no trespassing[.]” Appellant’s App. p. 20. In order to reach the back door, Deputy Butterfield had to pass through the closed gate of a chain-link fence, which gate bore signs that read “no trespassing” and “please use front door only[.]” Appellant’s App. p. 19. A paved sidewalk led from the fence gate to a back patio, which afforded access to the back door.
On his way to the back door, Deputy Butterfield noticed a circular pile of firewood in the back yard that “seemed a little strange.” Appellant’s App. p. 20. Deputy Butterfield knocked on the back door several times, again receiving no response. As he was leaving, Deputy Butterfield noticed a stack of brush leading from the firewood circle and, when he took two steps off of the back patio, could see a “grow” inside the circle. Appellant’s App. p. 20. Deputy Butterfield approached the circle and observed that it contained marijuana plants. Deputy Butterfield called his supervisor, Sergeant Clark.
. . . .
A survey of relevant case law reveals numerous instances where other jurisdictions have addressed the question of whether a police entry into a curtilage or approach to a secondary entrance was justified. In Hardesty v. Hamburg Township, 461 F.3d 646 (6th Cir. 2007), officers apprehended a minor for drunk driving and proceeded to the house where she claimed to have been drinking. Id. at 649. As the officers approached, they noticed a light go off inside the house, and, after receiving no response to their pounding on the front door, proceeded around to the back of the house where a back door could be accessed from a deck. Id. From their vantage point on the deck, officers made observations through the windows that caused them to enter the house. Id. at 649-50. In the civil case brought because of the allegedly illegal entry, the court concluded that the officers’ actions were not unconstitutional, employing the following analysis:
Police officers are permitted to enter private property and approach the front door in order to ask questions or ask for consent to search the premises. But knocking at the front door will not always result in police officers being able to initiate the permitted conversation. The most obvious example is where nobody is at home. Even where someone is at home, knocking at the front door may go unheard. When the circumstances indicate that someone is home and knocking at the front door proves insufficient to initiate a conversation with the person sought, officers should not be categorically prevented from carrying out their investigative function. Therefore, we hold that where knocking at the front door is unsuccessful in spite of indications that someone is in or around the house, an officer may take reasonable steps to speak with the person being sought out even where such steps require an intrusion into the curtilage. In this case, there were indications that someone was present within the Hardesty home, knocking at the front door proved unsuccessful, proceeding around the house and onto the back deck was a reasonable step, and that step was directed towards initiating a conversation with the person or persons in the house. Therefore, the Hamburg officers’ entry into the curtilage in order to effectuate the knock and talk investigative technique did not violate Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights.
Id. at 654. The Hardesty court also noted that its approach was consistent with that taken in other Circuits. Id.
Several other Circuits and state courts have addressed similar issues, with the weight of authority being fully consistent with the holding in Hardesty. . . . .
. . . .
In summary, seemingly unanimous authority requires some justification before a police officer may permissibly venture into spaces not normally used by the public, such as approaching a secondary entrance to a house located in the curtilage. In some cases, this entry is justified by a reasonable belief that a person may be contacted by such entry, and in others by observations that indicate possible criminal activity. The record contains no evidence that indicates such justifications in this case, as Deputy Butterfield did not observe or hear anything before entering Jadrich’s back yard that would have led a reasonable person to believe that any criminal activity was afoot, anybody was in the back yard, or knocking on the back door was more likely to result in contact with anyone inside the house.
The State, however, argues that Deputy Butterfield’s entry into Jadrich’s back yard was justified by the purpose of his being there, namely to serve a protective order. As Trimble made clear, the nature and purpose of the visitor’s call can be relevant in such cases. . . . .
The State has failed to convince us that Deputy Butterfield’s purpose for being at Jadrich’s home—to serve a civil protective order—justified his foray into the back yard. The State points to no authority suggesting that the service of protective orders is a purpose that excuses police entry into areas that are otherwise constitutionally protected and off-limits. Likewise, our research has uncovered no such authority. Moreover, while we acknowledge that the service of protective orders is an important official function, there is no indication in the record of any emergency or special urgency particular to the order at issue here. The State has failed to establish that Deputy Butterfield was justified in entering Jadrich’s back yard, an area specifically designated as off-limits to visitors, which is where he was when he found the marijuana. Consequently, the trial court erred in admitting evidence regarding the marijuana found in Jadrich’s back yard.
FRIEDLANDER, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.