United States v. Alexander
888 F.3d 628 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The area immediately surrounding a home that is used for intimate, domestic activities is considered protected curtilage under the Fourth Amendment, even if the area is not fully enclosed by a fence and is visible from a public street.
Facts:
- Robert Alexander lived in a narrow house with an 84-foot-long driveway that ran alongside the home into the backyard, ending near a shed.
- The property was fenced on three sides but was open to the street at the front of the driveway.
- Alexander used the part of the driveway in front of the shed for activities such as parking, barbeques, and relaxation.
- Around 3:00 a.m., while police were investigating other individuals in a car in front of his house, Alexander told officers he was 'just going to put [a liquor bottle] in the back.'
- Alexander walked down his driveway, picked up a bag that was next to his house, and went into the backyard area out of the officers' sight.
- He returned less than a minute later without the bottle or the bag.
- Without a warrant or probable cause, Officer Barreiro walked down the driveway and into the backyard to search for the items.
- Officer Barreiro found the bag on a chair near the shed and discovered two guns inside.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Alexander was charged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York with being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- Alexander filed a pretrial motion to suppress the guns, arguing they were found during an unconstitutional search of his home's curtilage.
- The district court (a trial court) held a suppression hearing and denied the motion as to the guns, ruling the area searched was not curtilage.
- The guns were admitted into evidence at trial, and a jury convicted Alexander.
- Alexander appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (an intermediate appellate court), arguing the district court's denial of his suppression motion was an error.
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 police search of a residential backyard area, located at the end of a long driveway and used for domestic activities, violate the Fourth Amendment's protection of curtilage, even if the area is not fully enclosed and is visible from a public street?
Opinions:
Majority - Lynch, J.
Yes, the warrantless police search violates the Fourth Amendment. The area where the guns were found is part of the home's curtilage, which is constitutionally protected from unreasonable searches. Applying the four-factor test from United States v. Dunn, the court found the area was in close proximity to the home and was used for intimate activities associated with the home, such as barbeques. While the area was not fully enclosed and was visible from the street, the Supreme Court's decision in Florida v. Jardines established that these factors are not dispositive. Just as the front porch in Jardines was deemed curtilage despite its public visibility and accessibility, this backyard area, intimately tied to the home, is protected. The police cannot enter and 'trawl' a home's curtilage for evidence without a warrant simply because it is not a fortress.
Concurring - Hellerstein, J.
Yes, the search violated the Fourth Amendment under current precedent, but the legal framework should be more flexible. The current binary choice between protected 'curtilage' and unprotected 'open fields' is too absolute. A better approach would be a sliding scale analysis where an officer's reasonable suspicion could justify a limited, warrantless search of curtilage areas that are farther from the home and less private. However, because the government did not argue that the officer's search was justified by reasonable suspicion and instead relied solely on the argument that the area was not curtilage, the court is bound by precedent to find the search unconstitutional. Therefore, I concur only in the judgment.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the curtilage doctrine to typical residential properties in the wake of Florida v. Jardines. It significantly curtails the weight of the 'enclosure' and 'visibility' factors from the Dunn test, signaling that property owners need not turn their homes into fortresses to receive Fourth Amendment protection for their yards. The ruling reinforces that the core inquiry is whether the area is intimately connected to home life. It sets a precedent that makes it more difficult for law enforcement to conduct warrantless searches in backyard areas of homes, even if those areas are not completely shielded from public view.
