United States v. Bucci
582 F.3d 108, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 20338, 2009 WL 2902709 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Continuous, long-term video surveillance of the exterior of a person's home from a public vantage point does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in what is knowingly exposed to the public.
Facts:
- Law enforcement authorities suspected Sean Bucci was involved in marijuana trafficking.
- Authorities installed a video camera on a utility pole across the street from Bucci's home.
- For eight months, the camera continuously monitored and recorded the front of Bucci's house, including his driveway and garage door.
- The camera was in a fixed location and did not have remote capabilities to zoom or change its view.
- The front of Bucci's residence, including the driveway and garage, were plainly visible from the street and were not obstructed by fences, gates, or shrubbery.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed an indictment against Sean Bucci in U.S. District Court for drug trafficking and other offenses.
- Bucci filed a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence, arguing that the eight-month video surveillance of his home was an unconstitutional search.
- The district court denied the motion to suppress.
- Following a trial, a jury found Bucci guilty on all sixteen counts.
- Bucci, as appellant, appealed his convictions and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the First 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 continuous, long-term video surveillance of the front of a person's residence, conducted with a fixed-position camera on a public utility pole, violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches?
Opinions:
Majority - Ebel, Circuit Judge
No. The continuous, long-term video surveillance of the front of Bucci's home did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it did not constitute a search. To determine whether a Fourth Amendment search occurred, the court applies the two-part test from Katz v. United States, which requires a defendant to show both a subjective expectation of privacy and that this expectation is one society is prepared to recognize as objectively reasonable. The court found that Bucci failed to establish an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. Citing Katz, the court reasoned that what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home, is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Because the front of Bucci's home, driveway, and garage were plainly visible to any member of the public on the street, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in that area. The use of a camera to observe what was publicly visible did not transform the lawful observation into an unconstitutional search.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional 'plain view' doctrine in the context of technology-aided surveillance, holding that the Fourth Amendment is not implicated when law enforcement uses technology to observe what is already exposed to public view. The court's focus on the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy, irrespective of the eight-month duration of the surveillance, distinguishes this case from later Supreme Court decisions like United States v. Jones and Carpenter v. United States, which found that long-term technological monitoring could constitute a search. This case thus represents a crucial data point in the evolution of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence concerning privacy in the digital age, underscoring the legal significance of the distinction between observing public-facing areas and penetrating private spaces.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Bucci