Boundaries of the Fourth Amendment:

park protected

.,
. " 29. Garage
protected

9. Okay beeper

P eoples' homes (or motel rooms or RVsfmay still be their:'castles;for:

the courts, as legal realtors, have parceled out prime privacy propert}'
ment purposes; but
years. This subdivision
of the Fourth Amendment has now shrunk what were expansive rnlr:ttn,t1rc:If\f one's private property,
homestead, and curtilage to a small plot, necessarily fenced or
cades protecting home privacy increasingly has been
the constitutional barri-
warrantless exceptions.
(Continued on page )0.)

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

37. Office buildillg

can have Fourth
Amendment

D
WWW.NACDL.ORG A UST 2002
 It is not, as a rule, as "exclusive" as it Notes
use to be. Backyards can be scrutinized 1. Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)
from the air; and garbage in the drive- (observation by helicopter from 400 feet
way can be examined, all without war- of contents of greenhouse did not violate
rants. What is a person seeking privacy Fourth Amendment).
to do? A map would help. As such, this 2. California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.s. 207
graphic attempts to illustrate some of (1986) (observation by airplane in public
the "boundaries" of the Fourth airspace of marijuana plants in back yard
Amendment in relation to homes, busi- surrounded by fences did not violate
nesses, buildings and curtilage. Curtilage Fourth Amendment).
itself is a term of art, meaning the adja- 3. Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483
cent property to a house that falls under (1964) (hotel clerk cannot consent for
the home's protection for Fourth guests who properly rented room).
Amendment purposes. The United 4. Chapman v. United States, 367 U.s.
States Supreme Court, in marking off 610 (1961) (landlord cannot consent for
~
the perimeters of curtilage, devised a test tenant in possession).
z in United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 5. California v. Greenwood, 486 U.s. 35
w
(1987), looking at (a) the property's (1988) (Fourth Amendment does not pro-
~ proximity to the home; (b) whether hibit search of opaque plastic garbage
C there is an enclosure; (c) the nature or bags outside of curtilage of home).
Z use of the property; and (d) any privacy 6. Abel v. United States,362 U.S. 217
w steps that have been taken. Such a (1960) (abandoned effects of departed
~ well-Dunn test is also a "Mapp" applica- guest in hotel room not protected by the
< tion. It is also a subject one can warm to Fourth Amendment).
now that the Supreme Court has thrown 7. Hester v. United States,265 U.s. 57
cold water on thermal imaging. Because (1924) (an open field which can be
we are a nation on the move, we have observed has no privacy interest).
also included in this graphic a "stop" at a 8. Oliver v. United States,466 U.s. 170
motel, a stroll past some businesses, a (1984) (no privacy interest in open field
scenic view of some open fields, and var- regardless of fences, signs saying "No
ious vehicles for "cite-seeing:' Trespass" or seclusion).
9. United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276
(1983) (warrantless use of beeper on car to
trace does not violate Fourth
LL Amendment); United States v. Mciver, 186
o F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 1999) (magnetic elec-
tronic device okay).
10. Texas v. Brown, 460 U.s. 730 (1983)
(use of a flashlight or binoculars not pro-
~ hibited as a search); Dow Chemical Co. v.
United States, 472 U.S.227 (1986) (open air
< area not protected from aerial photos);
C
United States v. Lee, 274 U.S.559 (1927)
Z
(use of search light permissible).
;::)
11. United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294
o (1987) (curtilage determined by consider-
I:Q
ing (a) proximity to residence, (b) whether
the same enclosure has house, (c)nature of
uses and (d) steps to shield from observa-
tion).
12. United States v. Cormier, 220 F.3d
1103 (9th Cir. 2000) (no expectation of pri-
vacy in guest registration); United States v.
Willis, 759 F.2d 1486 (11 th Cir.1985).
13. United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48
(1951) (Fourth Amendment extended to
hotel room); Stoner v. California, 376 U.s.
483 (1966) (same); Hoffa v. United States,
385 U.s. 293 (1966) (same); United States v.
Nerber, 222 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2000) (motel
room used for drugs reverted to private
after deal); United States v. Ramos, 12 F.3d
1019 (11 th Cir. 1994) (use of hotel has pri-
vacy expectations); United States v.
Foxworth,8 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 1993) (same);
WWW.NACDL.ORG
United States v. Winsor, 846 F.2dJ 569 (9th
eir. 1988) (same).
14. Lewis v. United States, 385 U.s. 206
(1966).
15. United States v. Gorman, 104 F.3d
272 (9th Cir. 1996) (area outside of bus that
is used as a residence is curtilage for
Fourth Amendment purposes).
16. United States v. Depew, 8 F.3d
1424 (9th Cir. 1993) (area six feet from
garage and 50 to 60 feet from home was
still within curtilage as it was within the
privacy scope of home); United States
v.Jenkins, 124 F.3d 768 (6th Cir. 1997)
(enclosed by fence).
17. United States v. Boden,854 F.2d
983 (7th Cir. 1988) (tenant of public stor-
age facility has no reasonable expectation
of privacy).
18. United States v. Billings, 858 F.2d
617 (10th Cir. 1988) (no reasonable expec-
tation of privacy in public restroom).
19. United States v. Brown, 169 F.3d 89
(1 st Cir. 1999) (no expectation of privacy in
common area of apartment complex);
United States v. Acosta, 965 F.2d 1248 (3d
Cir. 1992) (no expectation of privacy in
common hallway of apartment).
20. United States v. Ludwig, 10 F.3d
1523 (10th Cir. 1993) (no expectation of
privacy in motel parking lot).
21. United States v. Redman, 138 F.3d
1109 (7th Cir. 1998) (no expectation of pri-
vacy in garbage cans next to home when
local ordinance states it cannot be on
street).
22. United States v. Wilkinson, 926
F.2d 22 (1 st Cir. 1991) (no expectation of
privacy with trash on lawn and bags in
wheelbarrows).
23. United States v. Long, 176 F.3d
1304 (10th Cir. 1999) (garbage bags atop
trailer parked between a garage and alley
not within curtilage).
24. United States v. Wright, 991 F.2d
1182 (4th Cir. 1993) (expectation of privacy
in barn within curtilage but officer could
look in windows).
25. United States v. Hendrick, 922 F.2d
396 (7th Cir. 1991) (garbage cans in drive-
way 20 feet from garage and 50 feet from
back door were still within curtilage).
26. United States v. Scott, 975 F.2d 927
(1 st Cir. 1992) (shredded garbage outside
curtilage not protected).
27. United States v. Shanks, 97 F.3d
977 (3d Cir. 1996) (garbage adjacent to
garage and placed in alley outside cur-
tilage).
28. United States v. Reilly, 76 F.3d 1271
(2nd Cir. 1996) (curtilage within 100 yards
of main house when residence is on prop-
erty of ten acres with fence and other indi-
cations of private use).
29. Taylor v. United States, 286 U.s. 1
THE CHAMPION
(,1932); United States v. Frazin, 780 F.2d
1461 (9th Cir. 1986) (no distinction
between attached garage from rest of
home).
30. United States v. Gooch, 6 F.3d 673
(9th Cir. 1993) (reasonable expectation
with permit for closed tent in park);
LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318 (9th Cir.
1985) (tent on private property); but see
United States v. Rigsby, 943 F.2d 631 (6th
Cir. 1991) (no indication tent was like
home).
31. Michigan Department of State
Police v. Sitz, 496 U.s. 444 (1990) (DUI
checkpoint does not violate Fourth
Amendment); see also Delaware v. Prouse,
440 U.S. 648 (1979) (road block for pur-
pose of verifying drivers' licenses and vehi-
cle registrations).
32. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond,
121 S. Ct. 447 (2000) (drug intradiction
checkpoints violate the Fourth
Amendment).
33. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347
(1967) (reasonable expectation of priva-
cy).
34. Exclusionary rule suppresses ille-
gally seized evidence. Weeks v. United
States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) (origin of the
rule in federal courts); Silverthorne
Lumber Co. v. United States,251 U.s. 385
(1920) ("fruit of the poisoned tree"ori-
35. California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 can have Fourth Amendment protection).
(1985) (motor home not afforded same 38. Martinez-Fuerte v United States,
Fourth Amendment protection as home); 428 U.S. 543 (1976) (border patrol check-
United States v. Morehead, 959 F.2d 1489 point consistent with Fourth Amendment).
(10th Cir. 1992) (no violation of Fourth 39. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.s. 27
Amendment to look through windows of (2001) (use of thermal imaging to measure
camper). heat emanating from home was a search
36. United States v. Griffin, 827 F.2d and is presumably unreasonable).
1108 (7th Cir. 1987). (toolshed within cur- 40. United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.s.
tilage protected). 266 (2002) (reaffirming totality of circum-
37.0liver v. United States,466 U.S. 170 stances test even for supposedly innocent
(1984) (commercial and office buildings factors) . •
0'
o
c
z
o
»
;;;::
II
V'
c
'"T

gin};Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (rule c

applied to states). c
:;;;:

Ii'
z
c
~
Ii'
z

WWW . NACDL.ORG AUGUST 2002