Sixth Circuit Affirms Fourth-Amendment Protection for Mini-Cabins: Warrantless Code-Enforcement Inspections of Curtilage Held Unconstitutional

Introduction

In Michael & Susan Mockeridge v. Harry Harvey, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit confronted a question rarely addressed in Fourth-Amendment jurisprudence: does a cluster of modest, 200-square-foot “mini-cabins” erected on remote woodlands qualify as “houses,” thereby receiving the same constitutional sanctity as traditional dwellings? The panel—Judges Kethledge, Murphy, and Mathis (author of the opinion)—answered yes, holding that the cabins, as well as their surrounding curtilage, are protected against warrantless government intrusion. Three local officials who had entered the property to investigate zoning, building, and health-code concerns claimed qualified immunity; the district court denied immunity and granted partial summary judgment to the property owners. On interlocutory appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, crystallising a new precedent that directly limits warrantless regulatory searches of remote or secondary dwellings.

Summary of the Judgment

• Search Found: The officials’ physical entry onto the clearing around the mini-cabins, coupled with visual inspection and measurement, constituted a “search” under the property-based test articulated in Florida v. Jardines.

• Unreasonable Search: No warrant, exigency, consent, or other recognised exception applied. The “de minimis” theory urged by the officials was rejected.

• Clearly Established Right: By 2021, Supreme Court and Sixth-Circuit precedent had placed beyond debate that (a) curtilage enjoys full Fourth-Amendment protection, and (b) regulatory officials may not bypass the warrant requirement to search a dwelling’s curtilage for code enforcement. Consequently, qualified immunity was unavailable.

• Disposition: The panel affirmed denial of qualified immunity, dismissed a related cross-appeal as moot, and left only damages for trial.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) – Provided the core property-based rule: physical intrusion into curtilage to gather information is a search. The Sixth Circuit applied Jardines directly, analogising a drug-dog sniff on a front porch to code-officials prowling beside the cabins.
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) – Reinvigorated the trespass-plus-information standard. The opinion cites Jones to show that measuring setbacks and peering through windows is information-gathering of the sort condemned.
United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) – Articulated the four-factor curtilage test (proximity, enclosure, nature of use, steps to shield). Applied to show the clearing and surrounding area were intimately tied to the cabins and therefore protected.
Morgan v. Fairfield County, 903 F.3d 553 (6th Cir. 2018) & Watson v. Pearson, 928 F.3d 507 (6th Cir. 2019) – Sixth-Circuit elaborations on Jardines establishing that officers exceed the implied license when they wander off customary pathways. These cases supplied the “clearly established” prong.
Gardner v. Evans, 920 F.3d 1038 (6th Cir. 2019) – Confirmed that warrantless housing-code searches require pre-compliance review; cited to show the right was clearly established in a regulatory context.
Widgren v. Maple Grove Township, 429 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2005) – The officials relied heavily on this property-assessment case, but the panel distinguished it (tax purpose, exterior eye-level observation, pre-Jardines analysis) and suggested Widgren’s reasoning may not survive post-Jones/-Jardines doctrine.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Sixth Circuit marched through the two-step qualified-immunity analysis:

Constitutional Violation. Employing the property-based test, the panel found an unquestionable trespass by the inspectors for the purpose of obtaining information. Because the cabins exhibit all functional attributes of dwellings—solid log walls, insulation, beds, electricity, locking doors—the court labelled them “houses,” invoking the maxim that “the most frail cottage” enjoys equal protection as “the most majestic mansion.” The clearing where the officials walked, only a few feet from the cabins, satisfied the Dunn curtilage factors.
Unreasonableness. Absent a warrant or recognised exception, a search of a dwelling’s curtilage is per se unreasonable. The governmental interest (probing non-exigent zoning infractions on private land) was found insufficient to invoke a “de minimis” exception, particularly given the invasive route through dense woods rather than a public pathway.
Clearly Established Law. By 2019, Jardines, Collins v. Virginia, Morgan, and Gardner had put local officials on “fair notice” that curtilage intrusions for investigative purposes are forbidden. The officials’ reliance on Widgren was misplaced since Widgren preceded the Supreme Court’s property-rights renaissance.

3. Impact of the Decision

Dwellings Re-Defined: Any structure possessing basic residential features and used for sleeping—even if seasonal, prefabricated, or secondary—now falls comfortably within the Fourth-Amendment term “house” in the Sixth Circuit.
Regulatory Enforcement Limits: Health, zoning, and building officials must obtain a warrant, consent, or satisfy a recognized exception before physically entering the curtilage of a private cabin or outbuilding for code inspections, especially in rural settings.
Narrowing Widgren. The opinion signals that post-Jardines, the earlier leniency for assessors or inspectors conducting “naked-eye” inspections may no longer apply once an official steps onto protected land.
Practical Policing & Governance: Local governments within the Sixth Circuit (MI, OH, KY, TN) must revisit inspection protocols, training officers and inspectors to secure administrative warrants under Camara v. Municipal Court-type procedures before entering curtilage.
National Persuasion: Although circuit-specific, the decision may influence other circuits facing the increasingly common phenomenon of “tiny-home” or “glamping” properties, encouraging broader recognition of such structures as Fourth-Amendment houses.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Curtilage: The immediate area surrounding a dwelling where daily domestic activities occur—think yard, deck, or, in this case, the clearing around mini-cabins. It is treated the same as the inside of the home for search-and-seizure purposes.
Property-Based vs. Privacy-Based Tests: The Supreme Court recognises two lenses for defining a “search.” The property-based test asks whether officials physically trespassed on protected property to get information. The privacy-based test (from Katz v. United States) asks whether society would deem the targeted activity or area “private.” In this case, only the property test was needed.
Qualified Immunity: A doctrine shielding government officials from civil damages unless (1) they violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was “clearly established” so any reasonable official would have understood the violation.
Implied License (Knock-and-Talk): The understanding that anyone—including police—may walk up a home’s front path, knock, wait briefly, then leave. It does not grant permission to wander elsewhere on the property.
De Minimis Exception: A narrow allowance for very slight governmental intrusions when weighed against substantial public interests (e.g., confirming a white powder is cocaine in Jacobsen). The court refused to extend it to code-enforcement snooping here.

Conclusion

Mockeridge v. Harvey cements a straightforward yet powerful proposition: the Fourth Amendment does not discriminate among dwellings, whether sprawling mansions or 200-square-foot mini-cabins tucked deep in Michigan woodlands. Regulatory officials who wish to inspect such properties must seek a warrant or obtain consent; otherwise, they risk personal liability under § 1983. By clarifying the status of modern, non-traditional living structures and rebuffing an expansive view of governmental inspection power, the Sixth Circuit has both modernised Fourth-Amendment doctrine and fortified property owners’ privacy against creeping administrative intrusions. Lawyers, municipal regulators, and landowners alike should heed this decision when planning or defending enforcement activity in the ever-evolving landscape of contemporary housing.