United States v. Eugene George Breza
308 F.3d 430 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless search of a portion of residential property is permissible under the Fourth Amendment if the search is preceded by aerial observation from a lawful public vantage point and the area searched is determined not to be within the home's curtilage based on factors of demarcation, use, and visibility, even if it is in close proximity to the house.
Facts:
- Eugene George Breza owned a 92-acre farm in West Virginia, where his house was surrounded by a landscaped lawn and a vegetable garden.
- A perimeter fence enclosed the house, lawn, and garden.
- An interior post-and-wire fence, along with an ornamental garden and several trees, separated the vegetable garden from the lawn, which was approximately 50 feet from the back of the house.
- Breza was growing several hundred marijuana plants in the vegetable garden, concealed from ground-level view by artichoke plants and grapevines.
- Law enforcement officers, during a drug interdiction operation, flew a helicopter over Breza's property at an altitude of approximately 500 feet.
- The officers observed what they believed to be marijuana, descended to about 200 feet to confirm their observation, and then radioed ground officers.
- Officers on the ground immediately entered the vegetable garden without a warrant and seized the marijuana plants.
Procedural Posture:
- Eugene George Breza was indicted in federal district court for manufacturing 100 or more marijuana plants.
- Breza filed a motion to suppress the marijuana evidence, arguing that both the aerial surveillance and the warrantless entry into his garden violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
- After a hearing, the district court denied the motion to suppress.
- Breza entered a conditional guilty plea, which reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his suppression motion.
- Breza (as appellant) appealed the district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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 the warrantless aerial surveillance of a property and subsequent physical entry and seizure of evidence from a fenced-off vegetable garden violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Wilkins
No, the warrantless aerial surveillance and subsequent search of the vegetable garden did not violate the Fourth Amendment. First, the aerial surveillance was not a 'search' because it did not infringe upon a reasonable expectation of privacy. Citing Florida v. Riley, the court reasoned that observations from public navigable airspace are permissible. The court accepted testimony that the helicopter flew at a lawful altitude and that such flights were a regular occurrence in the area, thus satisfying the constitutional standard. Second, the warrantless ground search of the garden was permissible because the garden was not within the curtilage of the home and was therefore considered an 'open field.' Applying the four factors from United States v. Dunn, the court determined that while the garden's proximity to the house (50 feet) weighed in favor of curtilage, the other three factors weighed against it: 1) the interior fence and landscaping 'clearly demarcated' the garden as an area separate from the home; 2) the use of the garden for large-scale marijuana cultivation was not an 'intimate activity of the home'; and 3) Breza had not taken significant steps to protect the garden from aerial observation. The court concluded that the garden was not so intimately tied to the home as to warrant Fourth Amendment protection.
Analysis:
This case provides a key application of the four-factor curtilage test from United States v. Dunn. It clarifies that an interior fence can serve to limit the scope of curtilage by demarcating an area as separate from the home's intimate living space, rather than automatically expanding it. The decision also reinforces the principle that using an area for significant illegal activity weighs against it being considered part of the home's protected curtilage. For future cases, this opinion solidifies that courts will balance the Dunn factors holistically, and that factors like clear separation and non-intimate use can outweigh close proximity to the home.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Eugene George Breza