U.S. v. Dunn Case Brief

U.S. v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 107 S.Ct. 1134 (1987)

FACTS: DEA agents, upon discovering that Carpenter had purchased large quantities of chemicals and equipment used to manufacture controlled substances, placed tracking devices on some of the equipment and chemical containers. The devices led them to Dunn’s ranch. Aerial photographs showed the truck backed up to a barn behind the house. A perimeter fence surrounded the ranch, and inside that area, several barbed wire fences were erected, in particular, one around the house area, which was 150 feet from the barn, and a wooden fence enclosed the front area of the barn. The barn itself had an open doorway surrounded by locked, waist-high gates. The officers entered the fenced-in area and went to the front of the barn. They smelled chemicals and heard a motor running. They did not cross the locked gate, but using a flashlight, peered inside, and saw what they believed to be a drug lab. Twice the next day, they entered the ranch, confirming the presence of the lab, but did not enter the barn itself. They obtained a search warrant, seized chemicals, equipment and drugs from the property, and arrested Dunn.

Dunn challenged the entry of the property as a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

ISSUE: Was the entry of the agents into the area of the barn, through the fences, unconstitutional?

HOLDING: No

DISCUSSION: The Court found that the barn was not within the protected “curtilage” of the property. The extent of the curtilage can be defined using four factors: 1) the proximity of the area to the home, 2) whether the area is within an enclosure (fence) that also surrounds the home, 3) the nature and use of the area and 4) the steps taken by owner to protect the area from view by passersby.

In this situation, the barn was a considerable distance from the home, was not surrounded by the same fence as the home (but was inside the perimeter fence), the barn was obviously not used for residential purposes, and the barn did not have doors, but the interior was open to plain sight.

The Court goes on to comment that the fences were of the nature to contain livestock, not to block the view, and that the use of a flashlight to enhance sight was permissible.