United States v. Houston

813 F.3d 282 (6th Cir. 2016)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The evidence against D was video footage of his possessing firearms at his and his brother's rural Tennessee farm. The footage was recorded by a camera installed on top of a public utility pole approximately 200 yards away. This ten-week surveillance was conducted without a warrant, but the use of the pole camera did not violate d's reasonable expectations of privacy because the camera recorded the same view of the farm as that enjoyed by passersby on public roads. The Sheriff's Department informed ATF that D was a convicted felon in open possession of firearms at his residence. Houston had been convicted by a Tennessee jury of a felony in March 2010, although his conviction was still pending on direct appeal when the sheriff's department contacted the ATF and throughout the ATF's subsequent investigation. ATF agents attempted to conduct drive-by surveillance of the farm. They were unable to observe for any length of time because their vehicles '[stuck] out like a sore thumb' at the rural property. At the direction of the ATF and without a warrant, the utility company installed a surveillance camera on a public utility pole located roughly 200 yards from Leon's trailer. The camera broadcasted its recordings via an encrypted signal to an IP address accessed through a log-in and password. The camera could move left and right and had a zoom function. The ATF agents trained the camera primarily on Leon's trailer and a nearby barn because they understood that D spent most of his time in and around the trailer and occasionally slept there. D was arrested. At trial, an Special Agent Dobbs testified that the view that the camera captured was identical to what the agents would have observed if they had driven down the public roads surrounding the farm. At trial, footage from the warrantless use of the camera was introduced to show D possessing firearms on seven dates during the ten-week surveillance. The district court denied D's pretrial motion to prohibit P from introducing lay opinion testimony of Special Agent Dobbs regarding the footage. Dobbs identified for the jury when the recordings showed D, his brother, or firearms. Dobbs had become familiar with the brothers through conducting drive-bys and personally observing the brothers, as well as through studying the surveillance footage. Dobbs was also permitted to testify that one of the firearms in the video was a 'Ruger Mini 14' because he gained personal familiarity with that type of firearm when a relative owned one. D was convicted and appealed.