Oral Argument Cases

Collins v. Virginia (2018)

Facts: The officers searched the defendant’s driveway and the SC held that the driveway is a classic exemplar of curtilage

No Dunn analysis because driveway is classsic example of curtilage

Florida v. Jardines (2013)

Facts: Agents recieved a tip marijuana was being grown on D’s property, agents went to the property and on the D’s front porch a drug-sniffing dog.

Holding: SC held that the agents entered the curtilage becasue the front porch is a classic example of curtilage

United States v Duenas (2012)

Facts: Agents executed a search warrant on D’s property for evidence of drug manufacturing, agents mismanaged scene by allowing people (reporters and lay) onto the property to photograph.

Property Facts: isolated jungle property in Guam

Holding: Front yard is not curtilage. No determination whether the media entered the curtilage, but in finding 4th violation, court focused on the fact that agents took reporters to photograph marijuana patches in the heavily jungled area in the back of the property.

Reasoning: Dunn factors not applicable to this property, but they suggest the backyard was curtilage. It was adjacent to structures, heavily jungled areas and not visible from main road/dirt road.

United States v. Chartier (2004)

Facts: D appeals conviction for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute marijuana.

Holding: Patch not within curtilage

Proximity: NO Plants located too far from home.

Enclosure: NO No enclosure surrounding home and marijuana plants

Use: NO Marijuana patch not used for intimate activity

Shield: NO D’s attempts to protect the property not sufficient.

United States v. Dobbs (2009)

Facts: Agents searched D’s 80 acre property

Holding: Affirm district court’s decision denying D’s MTS. Agents did not enter the curtilage

Proximity: NO Agents stood 75 yards from the residence

Enclosure: NO Agents stood on driveway (seperate from residence) and never entered clearing surrounding residence.

• Distinguishable: Agents entered clearing surroudning Morrises’ residence

Use: NO No indication that the portion of the driveway used for dom activities

• Distinguishable: Morrises’ niece and nephews played in driveway

Shielding: NEUTRAL: no trespassing sign, remote, heavily wooded, are some but few steps

United States v. Perea-Rey

Proximity: YES- carport adjacent to the house and shares a wall

Enclosure: YES- carport and home within same fence

Use: YES- D used carport to store valuable personal belongings, his trucks and car tools, and building supplies.

Shield: YES- went to measure to protect carport from view from beyond fence line roof and walls. Interior of the carport only viewable from inside the fence line

Holding: carport is within curtilage. Reverse DC denial of defendant’s motion to supress evidence

United States v. Barajas (2003)

Facts: The agents observed defenant purchasing 15+ pounds of MSM on 3 different occasionas. Agents investigated rural land and stood outside the trailer and saw two 20 pound propane tanks, counter tops were empty, and there were four inch thick foam pads but no bedding or pillows. Trailer did not seem to have signs of occupancy.

Holding: Open field surrounding trailer not within curtilage, DC did not err in issuing search warrants based on agents observations

Reasoning: Agents saw no activity or lights on property after nightfall, no evidence the trailer used as home since 1993, no electrical services, neighbors told officers no one lived there

United States v Garcia (2016)

Holding: Court affirms DC decision denying defendnat’s motion to supress evidence

Reasoning: Defendnat failed to show that the trailer used to dry and store marijuana was used for intimate activities. Even if the trailer was a home, officers saw the marijuana in plain view

United States v. Struckman (2010)

Facts: Officer’s had a call from the neighbor reporting a white male with black jacket threw red backpack over fence and climbed into backyard. Officers saw red backpack in backyard and defendant, a white male wearing a black jacket. Officers ordered him on the ground and searched his backpack finding a gun. Officers learned he was a felon and arrested him for possessing a firearm.

Holding: The police officer’s actions violated defendant’s fourth amendment rights. Court reverses DC decision to deny MTS evidence.

Reasoning: D’s fenced in backyard adjacent to the home in residential negborhood is clearly curtilage.

United States v Dunn (1987)

Facts: The defendant drew DEA attention by purchasing large amounts of chemicals used to make illegal drugs. Agents surveilled his 198-acre ranch and observed him storing those chemicals in a barn. Agents entered the property by crossing perimeter and interior fences, but did not enter the barn. The barn had an open overhang; inside, a gated and partially covered interior blocked full access. From outside the barn, agents used flashlights and observed what they believed was a drug lab.

Property layout:

• Ranch: 198 acres, home about ½ mile from the public road

• Barn: ~50 yards from the fenced home area

• Multiple enclosures: entire property fenced; separate fences around the home and barn

Reasoning

• Proximity: The barn was ~60 yards from the house, a substantial distance that weighs against treating it as part of the home.

• Enclosure: The barn was outside the fence enclosing the home, marking it as a separate area rather than part of the home’s private space.

• Use: Evidence (chemical odors, equipment sounds, and surveillance) showed the barn was used for drug activity—not intimate home life—so it was not part of the home’s protected area.

• Shielding: The defendant took minimal steps to block observation; the fences were typical livestock barriers, not privacy measures.

Holding: Reverse APP court decision granting MTS evidence

US v Davis (2008)

Facts: Detectives got a tip about marijuana growing on a remote, 80-acre rural property. They entered past a gate, followed sounds of a generator and the smell of marijuana, and approached a separate, fenced workshop located away from the house. From outside the fence, they observed steam and strong marijuana odor coming from a pipe connected to the workshop, with no signs of normal domestic use.

Reasoning

• Proximity: Not satisfied — workshop was ~180 feet from the house.

• Enclosure: Not satisfied — outside the home’s fenced area and separately enclosed.

• Use: Not satisfied — evidence pointed to marijuana production, not intimate home activity.

• Shielding: Neutral — remote location + foliage + no trespassing provided some privacy, but not sufficent

Holding

DC correctly denied MTS evidence