United States v. Dunn

Facts

DEA discovered that Carpenter (D) had purchased large quantities of chemicals and equipment used in the manufacture of amphetamine and phenylacetone. P obtained warrants for tracking devices. Agents were able to track the 'beeper' in the container of chemicals until they arrived at D's ranch. Aerial photographs of the ranch property showed D's truck backed up to a barn behind the ranch house. The agents also began receiving transmission signals from the 'beeper' in the hot plate stirrer that they had lost in early September and determined that the stirrer was on D's ranch property. The ranch was 198 acres and was completely encircled by a perimeter fence. It contained several interior fences of posts and multiple strands of barbed wire. It was situated 1/2 mile from a public road. A fence encircled the residence and a nearby small greenhouse. Two barns were located approximately 50 yards from this fence. The front of the larger of the two barns was enclosed by a wooden fence and had an open overhang. Locked, waist-high gates barred entry into the barn proper, and netting material stretched from the ceiling to the top of the wooden gates. P made a warrantless entry onto the property. To do so they crossed over the perimeter fence and one interior fence. Midway between the residence and the barns, they smelled what was believed to be phenylacetic acid, the odor coming from the direction of the barns. They approached the smaller of the barns by crossing over a barbed wire fence and, looking into the barn, observed only empty boxes. They proceeded to the larger barn, crossing another barbed wire fence as well as a wooden fence that enclosed the front portion of the barn. The officers walked under the barn's overhang to the locked wooden gates and, shining a flashlight through the netting on top of the gates, peered into the barn. They observed a phenylacetone laboratory. They did not enter the barn. but departed and eventually, they returned and entered it twice more on November 6 to confirm the presence of the phenylacetone laboratory. A Federal Magistrate issued a warrant authorizing a search of Ds ranch. D was arrested. D's motion to suppress all evidence seized pursuant to the warrant was denied. Ds were convicted. The Court of Appeals reversed. The search warrant had been issued based on information obtained during the officers' unlawful warrantless entry onto respondent's ranch property and, therefore, all evidence seized should have been suppressed. 'The barn in question was within the curtilage of the residence, and was within the protective ambit of the fourth amendment.' The Supreme Court granted P's petition for certiorari, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Oliver v. United States. On remand, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its judgment that the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant should have been suppressed, but altered the legal basis supporting this conclusion: the large barn was not within the curtilage of the house, but, by standing outside the barn and peering into the structure, the officers nonetheless violated D's 'reasonable expectation of privacy in his barn and its contents.' P again filed a petition for certiorari. The Court of Appeals recalled and vacated its judgment issued on remand, stating that it would enter a new judgment in due course. It then reinstated the original opinion rendered in 1982. P submitted a supplement to its petition for certiorari, revising the question presented to whether the barn lay within the curtilage of the house. The Supreme Court granted the petition.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.