John C. Bleavins v. Joel H. Bartels, Roger Bay, Vernon McGregor
2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 17212, 422 F.3d 445, 2005 WL 1950296 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An area on a person's property is not considered curtilage for Fourth Amendment purposes if it is separated from the home by an internal fence, used for non-domestic purposes such as storage, and is not shielded from public view. A warrantless seizure of property from such an area, classified as an open field, does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Facts:
- The State of Illinois determined John Bleavins owed more than $11,000 in back taxes.
- An Illinois Department of Revenue (IDOR) employee, Roger Bay, surveyed Bleavins' property from a distance using binoculars and observed several vehicles, including two trailers, in a field.
- Another IDOR employee, Joel Bartels, issued an administrative warrant authorizing the seizure of two boats on the property, but not the trailers.
- Bleavins' property was surrounded by a four-foot-high fence, had a 'PRIVATE PROPERTY KEEP OUT' sign at the driveway, and a separate, three-to-four-foot-high internal fence separated the field from the residential part of the property.
- State agents Bartels, Bay, and Vernon McGregor, along with sheriff's deputies, entered the property to execute the warrant.
- After determining they could not seize the boats without damaging them, the agents, over Bleavins' objection, seized a flatbed trailer and a tool trailer from the field instead.
- The trailers seized were not listed on the administrative warrant.
Procedural Posture:
- After the state seized his trailers, John Bleavins filed an action in state court, which ordered the return of his property.
- Bleavins then filed a civil rights action in state court against the state agents, alleging violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
- The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Bleavins on liability and, following a jury trial on damages, awarded him $1,000.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for a determination of whether the seized trailers were located within the curtilage of Bleavins' home.
- On remand, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that the area was not curtilage and that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.
- Bleavins (appellant) appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a warrantless seizure of property from a fenced-in field on a person's land violate the Fourth Amendment when the field is separated from the home by an internal fence, used for storage, and is not shielded from public view?
Opinions:
Majority - Ripple, J.
No, the warrantless seizure of property from the field did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the field was not part of the home's curtilage. The court applied the four-factor test from United States v. Dunn to determine that the field was an 'open field' and thus not entitled to Fourth Amendment protection. First, while the proximity was relatively close, this factor alone is not determinative. Second, a key internal fence separated the field from the home's immediate enclosure, suggesting it was not part of the area 'readily identifiable as part and parcel of the house.' Third, the field was used for storage of work and leisure vehicles, not for 'intimate' domestic activities associated with the home. Finally, Bleavins took insufficient steps to protect the area from observation; the fences were low and did not obstruct the view from a public road, and he failed to rebut evidence that foliage provided minimal cover during the wintertime observation. Because the field was not curtilage, Bleavins had no reasonable expectation of privacy in it, and the seizure did not violate his constitutional rights.
Analysis:
This decision provides a detailed application of the Dunn test for curtilage, clarifying that internal fences can be dispositive in demarcating an area as separate from the home's protected zone. It reinforces the principle that Fourth Amendment protection for areas outside the home depends on uses 'intimately connected' with domestic life, not mere storage. The ruling underscores that landowners must take active and effective measures to shield areas from public view to create a reasonable expectation of privacy; low fences and signs alone are insufficient. This case serves as a guide for lower courts in balancing the Dunn factors, particularly highlighting the weight given to internal demarcation and lack of screening from public observation.
