United States v. Dunn
480 U.S. 294 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For Fourth Amendment purposes, the curtilage of a home is determined by a four-factor test that assesses proximity to the home, whether the area is within the home's enclosure, the nature of the area's use, and the steps taken to protect it from observation. An outbuilding not meeting this test is considered an 'open field' and is not protected from warrantless visual inspection.
Facts:
- Ronald Dale Dunn owned a 198-acre ranch that was completely encircled by a perimeter fence.
- The ranch residence was situated a half-mile from a public road and was itself enclosed by a fence.
- Approximately 50 yards from the house fence, and 60 yards from the house itself, stood two barns.
- Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents tracked a shipment of chemicals used to manufacture phenylacetone to Dunn's property.
- Aerial photographs showed a truck, known to be carrying the chemicals, backed up to the larger of the two barns.
- Without a warrant, DEA agents and a police officer entered the ranch by crossing the perimeter fence and several interior barbed-wire fences.
- Standing between the residence and the barns, the agents smelled phenylacetic acid and heard a motor running from the direction of the larger barn.
- The agents approached the larger barn, stood under its overhang, and, by shining a flashlight through netting above a locked gate, observed a phenylacetone laboratory inside.
Procedural Posture:
- Ronald Dale Dunn was convicted in the U.S. District Court after the court denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained via the search warrant.
- On appeal by Dunn (appellant), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the conviction, holding that the barn was within the curtilage of the residence.
- The U.S. Government (petitioner) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, which vacated the appellate judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Oliver v. United States.
- On remand, the Fifth Circuit again found for Dunn but on different grounds, holding that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his barn, regardless of curtilage.
- The Fifth Circuit then recalled that judgment and reinstated its original opinion, holding once again that the barn was inside the protected curtilage.
- The U.S. Government (petitioner) again sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted.
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 barn located approximately 60 yards from a ranch house, outside the fence enclosing the house, and used for illicit drug manufacturing fall within the house's curtilage for Fourth Amendment protection?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No. The barn does not fall within the house's curtilage for Fourth Amendment protection. Curtilage questions are resolved by analyzing four factors: (1) the proximity of the area 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. Here, the barn was a substantial distance (60 yards) from the house and was located outside the fence that enclosed the residence. Furthermore, objective data available to the officers—the smell of chemicals, the sound of a motor, and the delivery of precursor chemicals—indicated the barn was not being used for the intimate activities of the home. Finally, Dunn did little to protect the barn from observation by those in the open fields, as the fences were typical ranch fences designed to corral livestock, not to ensure privacy. Because the barn was in an 'open field,' the officers' warrantless observation from a lawful vantage point did not constitute an illegal search.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes. The barn and its surrounding area fall within the curtilage of Dunn's farmhouse. The Court's four-factor analysis is flawed because extensive state and federal precedent recognizes that barns are typically an integral part of a farm home's curtilage. The majority wrongly focuses on the illegal use of this specific barn, which the officers only confirmed after their unconstitutional intrusion into the curtilage. The proper inquiry is the typical use of such a structure, not the specific criminal activity discovered. Dunn took substantial steps to protect his privacy with multiple fences, a locked driveway, and netting over the barn's entrance. Even if not considered curtilage, the barn was a private business premises from which the public was excluded, and the agents' intrusive actions of climbing multiple fences to peer inside violated Dunn's reasonable expectation of privacy.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
No, the barn is not within the curtilage, but the majority's reasoning on the third factor is flawed. It is not significant what 'objective data' the officers possessed indicating the barn's use. The relevant inquiry is the actual use of the barn, not the officers' perceptions or knowledge. The officers' state of mind might be relevant to the reasonableness of an intrusion, but it is not relevant to the objective determination of whether the structure was part of the curtilage.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing the modern, four-factor analytical framework for determining the extent of a home's curtilage under the Fourth Amendment. It clarifies that outbuildings are not automatically protected and that the 'open fields' doctrine can apply to areas on private, fenced property if they are sufficiently distinct from the home. The Dunn test provides lower courts with a structured, albeit flexible, standard for deciding the boundaries of Fourth Amendment protection outside the home itself, reinforcing the principle that this protection is highest for activities intimately associated with domestic life.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Dunn