United States v. Garrott
745 F.Supp.2d 1206 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The warrantless physical intrusion and search of a residential backyard violates the Fourth Amendment if the area qualifies as curtilage. An area is considered curtilage if a four-factor analysis of its proximity to the home, its inclusion within an enclosure, its use, and steps taken to protect it from observation demonstrates it is so intimately tied to the home itself that it should be placed under the home's umbrella of Fourth Amendment protection.
Facts:
- Deputies Gregory Thompson and Archie Maggard received an anonymous tip about marijuana plants behind the home of Jamal and Tosha Garrott.
- The deputies went to the Garrotts' property, walked up the driveway, and knocked on the front door, receiving no answer.
- The deputies then proceeded around the side of the house and entered the backyard, which was enclosed by a partially constructed wooden fence.
- The backyard contained a mowed lawn, a barbecue grill near the house, a shed, and two old cars parked on the grass.
- Approximately twenty yards from the house, behind one of the cars, the deputies discovered four marijuana plants growing in pots and a bucket.
- The plants were not visible from the public road in front of the house but could be seen from neighboring properties and an open field behind the lot.
- A water hose was stretched from the house to the location of the plants.
Procedural Posture:
- Jamal Garrott and Tosha Easterly Garrott were charged in a two-count indictment in federal district court.
- Defendants filed motions to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless search of their property.
- A Magistrate Judge conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motions.
- The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the motions be granted in part and denied in part.
- Defendants filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to partially deny their motions, bringing the matter before the District Judge for a de novo review.
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 police search of the defendants' backyard, located approximately twenty yards from their house and containing marijuana plants, violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches?
Opinions:
Majority - W. Keith Watkins
Yes, the warrantless search of the defendants' backyard violates the Fourth Amendment. The court found that the entire backyard constituted curtilage, an area intimately associated with the sanctity of the home and thus afforded the same constitutional protection. Applying the four-factor test from United States v. Dunn, the court determined that: (1) the 20-yard proximity was close; (2) the partially constructed fence served as a clear enclosure delineating the property; (3) the mowed lawn and presence of a barbecue grill indicated intimate, domestic use; and (4) although the area was visible to neighbors, the officers conducted an impermissible physical invasion rather than a lawful visual observation from a public vantage point. Because the backyard was curtilage, the warrantless search was unreasonable and unconstitutional.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the strong Fourth Amendment protection afforded to a home's curtilage and clarifies the application of the Dunn factors to a typical residential lot. It highlights the critical distinction between a permissible visual observation from a lawful vantage point and an unconstitutional physical trespass onto protected property. The ruling serves as a precedent that even if an area is not completely shielded from view, its use for intimate domestic activities and its proximity to the home can render it protected curtilage, making a warrantless police entry a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
