United States v. Aaron L. French
291 F.3d 945 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An area on private property, such as a driveway or walkway, is not considered within the home's curtilage for Fourth Amendment protection if it is not enclosed, is open to public access, and is not used for the intimate activities of the home, even if it is in close proximity to the residence.
Facts:
- Probation Officer Steve Kelly went to Aaron French’s property in Humboldt, Illinois, searching for a delinquent probationer, Richard Hensley, who was reportedly working there as a mechanic.
- The property contained a mobile home, a shed with a lean-to, and another shed, all accessible via a gravel driveway with no gates, fences, or 'no trespassing' signs.
- Upon arriving, Kelly saw a person working on a car near the shed and another individual, Kevin Morían, run from a lean-to into the adjoining shed.
- Concerned for his safety, Kelly walked on a gravel path connecting the mobile home and the shed to confront Morían.
- While standing on this walkway questioning another individual, Kelly smelled a strong odor of ether and, through the open shed door, observed items commonly used to manufacture methamphetamine.
- Kelly never entered the shed or lean-to; his observations from the walkway formed the basis for a subsequent search warrant.
- At the time of Kelly's arrival, at least three non-residents (Morían, Jordan, and Collins) were present and using the driveway and walkway areas.
- Several months later, Kelly returned to the property looking for the same probationer and again observed evidence of a meth lab from the same walkway area.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois charged Aaron French in a six-count indictment with drug and gun offenses.
- French filed a motion to suppress evidence seized from his property, arguing it resulted from an unconstitutional search.
- The district court (trial court) held a three-day suppression hearing.
- The trial court denied French's motion to suppress, finding the probation officer's observations were made from outside the home's curtilage.
- French entered into a conditional plea agreement, pleading guilty to two counts but reserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
- French (appellant) appealed the trial court's adverse ruling on his motion to suppress 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 gravel walkway on private property fall within the curtilage of a home for Fourth Amendment purposes when it is located twenty feet from the residence but is not enclosed, is open to public access, and is not used for intimate activities associated with the home?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Coffey
No. A gravel walkway on private property does not fall within the curtilage of a home under these circumstances. The court applied the four-factor test from United States v. Dunn to determine that French had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the walkway. First, while the walkway was in close proximity (twenty feet) to the home, proximity alone is not determinative. Second, the area was not included within any enclosure, such as a fence or gate, that would signify privacy. Third, the nature of the area's use was for public-facing activities like automotive repair and general access, not for intimate activities associated with home life. Fourth, French took no steps to protect the area from observation by passersby, as evidenced by the lack of fences or signs and the presence of several members of the public using the area freely. Because the walkway was functionally open to the public, the officer's presence on it for the legitimate purpose of locating a probationer was not an unconstitutional search.
Analysis:
This case provides a clear application of the four-factor curtilage test from United States v. Dunn, emphasizing that no single factor is dispositive. It solidifies the principle that a resident's failure to take steps to exclude the public from areas like driveways and walkways significantly diminishes their Fourth Amendment protection in those spaces. The decision confirms that law enforcement may enter onto parts of private property that are implicitly open to public use (like a path to a door or workshop) for legitimate business without a warrant. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants to claim curtilage protection for unenclosed, accessible areas of their property, especially when those areas are used for non-intimate, semi-public activities.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Aaron L. French