The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Shaw (Decided April 15, 2019, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that a fish house, within the curtilage of a home, is entitled to Fourth Amendment protection.
In Shaw, the police received a report that the Defendant hit a utility pole with his vehicle and then left the scene. The police were given the license plate number of the vehicle and they used this information to go to the Defendant's residence. When the police arrived at the home, they came in contact with the Defendant's mother who told them that Defendant was not in the residence. She refused to allow the police to search the home. Defendant's mother did consent to a search of the garage.
The police searched the garage but did not find Shaw. The deputies observed Shaw’s vehicle, the one involved in the accident, parked in the grass behind the home. They noted that the engine was warm to the touch, indicating that it had recently been driven, and a deputy testified that he also observed patches of dead grass indicating that a vehicle had been parked in the backyard at other times. Behind the home, the deputies also found an old, dilapidated fish house with grass growing around it. The grass in front of the fish house was matted down, indicating that someone had recently entered it. A deputy approached the fish house and called out for Shaw, who did not respond. The deputy opened the door to the fish house and discovered Shaw inside. Shaw subsequently failed field sobriety tests and was arrested on suspicion of DWI.
The Defendant moved to suppress all of the evidence arguing that the fish house was a constitutionally protected area which the police could not enter without a warrant. The district court denied the motion but on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court stating:
"In State v. Larsen, the supreme court considered whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a fish house. 650 N.W.2d 144, 149 (Minn. 2002)....The supreme court considered “the nature of the premises [in Larsen]—a fish house, erected and equipped to protect its occupants from the elements and often providing eating, sleeping, and other facilities—as providing privacy for activities recognized and permitted by society.” Id. at 149 (quotation omitted). The supreme court noted that “[w]hile clearly not a substitute for one’s private dwelling, during the period of occupancy important activities of a personal nature take place” within a fish house. Id. The supreme court concluded that Larsen had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his fish house."
But in this case the Court of Appeals held that Larsen does not apply as, "The record here does not suggest that Shaw was living in the fish house. Moreover, a dilapidated, overgrown fish house located in the backyard of a residence does not provide “eating, sleeping, and other facilities” as a fish house located on a lake would. Id. This case is distinguishable from Larsen, and therefore Shaw did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fish house."
The Court of Appeals further ruled, however, that:
"The “land immediately surrounding and associated with the home,” the curtilage, is “part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.” Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180, 104 S. Ct. 1735, 1742 (1984). To determine whether an area is located within the curtilage of the property, appellate courts look to “whether the area in question is so intimately tied to the home itself that it should be placed under the home’s ‘umbrella’ of Fourth Amendment protection."
"The United States Supreme Court has identified four relevant factors to use when determining whether a disputed area falls within the curtilage:
[1] the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home,
[2] whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home,
[3] the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and
[4] the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by. Dunn, 480 U.S. at 301, 107 S. Ct. at 1139.
"The fish house was located in the backyard of a residential, single-family home. “The backyard and driveway of a home are often considered to be within the curtilage of a home.” State v. Chute, 908 N.W.2d 578, 584 (Minn. 2018). Like the defendant in Chute, Shaw “does not live on a large piece of rural property” but rather “lives in a single-family home.” See id. Thus, the first Dunn factor—proximity to the home—weighs in Shaw’s favor."
"The record is less clear regarding the remaining Dunn factors. There was no testimony as to whether the property was enclosed by a fence, shielded by trees, or otherwise protected from observation. “The curtilage of a home, however, need not be completely shielded from public view.” Id. at 585. Thus, the second and fourth factors are neutral. As to the third Dunn factor, one deputy testified that it appeared from patches of dead grass that a vehicle had been parked in the backyard before, and the deputies discovered Shaw’s vehicle parked in the backyard that day. This indicates that Shaw may have used the backyard as a place to park his vehicle, and this kind of use is “closely related to the home and associated with the privacies of life.” See id. (concluding that portion of defendant’s backyard where he had parked a camper was curtilage). Therefore, this factor weighs in Shaw’s favor."
"In sum, consideration of the Dunn factors demonstrate that the backyard in which the fish house was located was within the curtilage of Shaw’s home, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in it, and the deputies therefore were required to obtain a warrant to search the fish house..."
Moral Of The Story: Even if something fishy is going on, the police still need a warrant to enter the house!
If you or a loved one have been arrested for a Minnesota DWI, or are facing a DWI forfeiture of your motor vehicle, feel free to contact Minnesota DWI Lawyer, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment