Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
park protected
.,
. " 29. Garage
protected
9. Okay beeper
by Jon M. Sands & Robyn Greenberg Varcoe, illti ..... ..-"r.ln by Shirley Lin
WWW.NACDl.ORG THE CHAMPION
a warrantless view of curtilage 10. Enhanced
vision okay
D
WWW.NACDL.ORG A UST 2002
It is not, as a rule, as "exclusive" as it Notes United States v. Winsor, 846 F.2dJ 569 (9th
use to be. Backyards can be scrutinized 1. Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989) eir. 1988) (same).
from the air; and garbage in the drive- (observation by helicopter from 400 feet 14. Lewis v. United States, 385 U.s. 206
way can be examined, all without war- of contents of greenhouse did not violate (1966).
rants. What is a person seeking privacy Fourth Amendment). 15. United States v. Gorman, 104 F.3d
to do? A map would help. As such, this 2. California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.s. 207 272 (9th Cir. 1996) (area outside of bus that
graphic attempts to illustrate some of (1986) (observation by airplane in public is used as a residence is curtilage for
the "boundaries" of the Fourth airspace of marijuana plants in back yard Fourth Amendment purposes).
Amendment in relation to homes, busi- surrounded by fences did not violate 16. United States v. Depew, 8 F.3d
nesses, buildings and curtilage. Curtilage Fourth Amendment). 1424 (9th Cir. 1993) (area six feet from
itself is a term of art, meaning the adja- 3. Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 garage and 50 to 60 feet from home was
cent property to a house that falls under (1964) (hotel clerk cannot consent for still within curtilage as it was within the
the home's protection for Fourth guests who properly rented room). privacy scope of home); United States
Amendment purposes. The United 4. Chapman v. United States, 367 U.s. v.Jenkins, 124 F.3d 768 (6th Cir. 1997)
States Supreme Court, in marking off 610 (1961) (landlord cannot consent for (enclosed by fence).
~
the perimeters of curtilage, devised a test tenant in possession). 17. United States v. Boden,854 F.2d
z in United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 5. California v. Greenwood, 486 U.s. 35 983 (7th Cir. 1988) (tenant of public stor-
w
(1987), looking at (a) the property's (1988) (Fourth Amendment does not pro- age facility has no reasonable expectation
~ proximity to the home; (b) whether hibit search of opaque plastic garbage of privacy).
C there is an enclosure; (c) the nature or bags outside of curtilage of home). 18. United States v. Billings, 858 F.2d
Z use of the property; and (d) any privacy 6. Abel v. United States,362 U.S. 217 617 (10th Cir. 1988) (no reasonable expec-
w steps that have been taken. Such a (1960) (abandoned effects of departed tation of privacy in public restroom).
~ well-Dunn test is also a "Mapp" applica- guest in hotel room not protected by the 19. United States v. Brown, 169 F.3d 89
< tion. It is also a subject one can warm to Fourth Amendment). (1 st Cir. 1999) (no expectation of privacy in
now that the Supreme Court has thrown 7. Hester v. United States,265 U.s. 57 common area of apartment complex);
cold water on thermal imaging. Because (1924) (an open field which can be United States v. Acosta, 965 F.2d 1248 (3d
we are a nation on the move, we have observed has no privacy interest). Cir. 1992) (no expectation of privacy in
also included in this graphic a "stop" at a 8. Oliver v. United States,466 U.s. 170 common hallway of apartment).
motel, a stroll past some businesses, a (1984) (no privacy interest in open field 20. United States v. Ludwig, 10 F.3d
scenic view of some open fields, and var- regardless of fences, signs saying "No 1523 (10th Cir. 1993) (no expectation of
ious vehicles for "cite-seeing:' Trespass" or seclusion). privacy in motel parking lot).
9. United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 21. United States v. Redman, 138 F.3d
(1983) (warrantless use of beeper on car to 1109 (7th Cir. 1998) (no expectation of pri-
trace does not violate Fourth vacy in garbage cans next to home when
LL Amendment); United States v. Mciver, 186 local ordinance states it cannot be on
o F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 1999) (magnetic elec-
tronic device okay).
street).
22. United States v. Wilkinson, 926
10. Texas v. Brown, 460 U.s. 730 (1983) F.2d 22 (1 st Cir. 1991) (no expectation of
(use of a flashlight or binoculars not pro- privacy with trash on lawn and bags in
~ hibited as a search); Dow Chemical Co. v. wheelbarrows).
United States, 472 U.S.227 (1986) (open air 23. United States v. Long, 176 F.3d
< area not protected from aerial photos); 1304 (10th Cir. 1999) (garbage bags atop
C
United States v. Lee, 274 U.S.559 (1927) trailer parked between a garage and alley
Z
(use of search light permissible). not within curtilage).
;::)
11. United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 24. United States v. Wright, 991 F.2d
o (1987) (curtilage determined by consider- 1182 (4th Cir. 1993) (expectation of privacy
I:Q
ing (a) proximity to residence, (b) whether in barn within curtilage but officer could
the same enclosure has house, (c)nature of look in windows).
uses and (d) steps to shield from observa- 25. United States v. Hendrick, 922 F.2d
tion). 396 (7th Cir. 1991) (garbage cans in drive-
12. United States v. Cormier, 220 F.3d way 20 feet from garage and 50 feet from
1103 (9th Cir. 2000) (no expectation of pri- back door were still within curtilage).
vacy in guest registration); United States v. 26. United States v. Scott, 975 F.2d 927
Willis, 759 F.2d 1486 (11 th Cir.1985). (1 st Cir. 1992) (shredded garbage outside
13. United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48 curtilage not protected).
(1951) (Fourth Amendment extended to 27. United States v. Shanks, 97 F.3d
hotel room); Stoner v. California, 376 U.s. 977 (3d Cir. 1996) (garbage adjacent to
483 (1966) (same); Hoffa v. United States, garage and placed in alley outside cur-
385 U.s. 293 (1966) (same); United States v. tilage).
Nerber, 222 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2000) (motel 28. United States v. Reilly, 76 F.3d 1271
room used for drugs reverted to private (2nd Cir. 1996) (curtilage within 100 yards
after deal); United States v. Ramos, 12 F.3d of main house when residence is on prop-
1019 (11 th Cir. 1994) (use of hotel has pri- erty of ten acres with fence and other indi-
vacy expectations); United States v. cations of private use).
Foxworth,8 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 1993) (same); 29. Taylor v. United States, 286 U.s. 1
Ii'
z
c
~
Ii'
z