United States v. Davalos, 2026 WL 237280 (5th Cir. 2026)
Our driveways feel private. They may even feel like home. But under the Fourth Amendment, not every driveway is protected curtilage, and even when it is, a vehicle does not become immune from search simply because it crosses the property line.
In San Antonio, a Texas state trooper observed David Davalos commit a traffic violation — failing to signal a lane change. The trooper initiated a stop just as Davalos pulled into the driveway of the home he shared with his parents. Some important facts about the driveway:
- There was no fence.
- There was no gate.
- It was open to the street.
- It was adjacent to a public sidewalk.
The trooper pulled in and blocked the vehicle, ordering Davalos to exit. Davalos climbed out, leaving the driver’s door open. The vehicle’s windows were heavily tinted. At this point, the officer testified, he could not see inside. As he approached, he smelled marijuana and saw ashes throughout the car. He also noticed the driver’s door appeared tampered with, i.e., that the door panel had been taken off and put back on. Davalos admitted he had recently smoked marijuana and possessed a small amount. The trooper searched the vehicle and found marijuana and a firearm. Besides the drug possession, Davalos was also charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
Timely legal analysis on law enforcement-related cases: SUBSCRIBE NOW!
In pre-trial motions, Davalos argued that because the vehicle was parked in his driveway — within the home’s curtilage — the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Collins v. Virginia, which held officers may not enter the curtilage of a home to search a vehicle without a warrant when no exception applies. That is the right starting point. But it is not the ending point.
The 5th Circuit held probable cause plus the automobile exception justified the search, regardless of whether the driveway might be considered curtilage.
On appeal, the 5th Circuit sidestepped an extended curtilage analysis. Instead, the court focused on two pillars: probable cause and exigent circumstances. Once the trooper smelled marijuana, saw ashes, and received an admission of recent use, probable cause existed to believe the vehicle contained contraband. Vehicles are inherently mobile. That mobility creates exigency. The automobile exception allows a warrantless search of a vehicle when there is probable cause, without a separate showing of additional exigency.
The 5th Circuit held probable cause plus the automobile exception justified the search, regardless of whether the driveway might be considered curtilage. In other words, even assuming the car might have been within the curtilage, the automobile exception still applied under these facts. The denial of suppression was affirmed.
Takeaways for officers:
- A driveway is not automatically within protected curtilage. Courts look at fences or gates, steps taken to shield the area from public view, proximity to public access. An open driveway connected directly to the street is often treated differently than a fenced, enclosed yard. Do not assume “driveway equals castle.”
- The automobile exception still matters on private property. Collins v. Virginia limits officers from physically entering protected curtilage to search a vehicle without a warrant. But when a stop begins on a public roadway and continues into an open driveway, and probable cause develops, the automobile exception remains powerful. Probable cause to search a vehicle does not disappear simply because the car stops in front of a house.
- Odor plus admission is strong probable cause. The smell of marijuana plus visible ashes plus admission of recent use is routinely sufficient for probable cause to search a vehicle.
- Officer safety and positioning matters. The trooper testified he could not see into the car due to heavy tint. Ordering the driver out and approaching cautiously is constitutionally permissible.
Curtilage is important. But it is not a force field.
- White Papers
