United States v. Jesus Fernando Cuevas-Sanchez
56 U.S.L.W. 2059, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 9524, 821 F.2d 248 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Continuous, long-term video surveillance of a fenced-in residential backyard constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment that requires a court order. Such an order is constitutionally valid if it satisfies four key requirements derived from Title III: necessity, particularity, limited duration, and minimization.
Facts:
- In early 1986, federal agents came to suspect that Jesus Fernando Cuevas-Sanchez's home was being used as a 'drop house' for drug traffickers.
- Cuevas-Sanchez's property was enclosed by fences, including a 10-foot-high metal fence at the rear of his backyard, which screened the area from public view.
- An affidavit supporting the government's application for a surveillance order contained a false statement that Cuevas-Sanchez had been previously arrested for cocaine possession; it had actually been his brother.
- On March 19, 1986, agents installed a video camera on top of a power pole, which allowed them to see over the 10-foot fence and observe all activity in the backyard.
- The video camera recorded individuals removing drugs from hidden compartments in vehicles parked in Cuevas-Sanchez's yard.
- On May 15, 1986, the camera recorded Cuevas-Sanchez loading his car with garbage bags that agents believed contained drugs.
- After Cuevas-Sanchez drove away from his property, police stopped his car and discovered 22 pounds of marijuana.
- A subsequent search of his home, based on the traffic stop and surveillance, uncovered an additional 58 pounds of marijuana.
Procedural Posture:
- The U.S. government charged Jesus Fernando Cuevas-Sanchez with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (a federal trial court).
- Cuevas-Sanchez filed a motion in the district court to suppress the evidence, arguing it was obtained through unlawful video surveillance.
- The district court denied the motion to suppress.
- After waiving a jury trial, Cuevas-Sanchez was found guilty by the district court judge.
- Cuevas-Sanchez (as appellant) appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, challenging only the denial of his suppression motion.
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 court order authorizing continuous video surveillance of a private residential backyard violate the Fourth Amendment if it is based on constitutional standards derived from, but not identical to, the statutory requirements for electronic aural surveillance under Title III?
Opinions:
Majority - Gee, Circuit Judge
No, the court order does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Continuous video surveillance of the curtilage of a home is a search that requires a warrant because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their fenced-in backyard that society is willing to recognize. While the federal statute governing electronic aural surveillance (Title III) does not explicitly cover video surveillance, a court order authorizing it is constitutionally sufficient if it meets the core constitutional principles embodied in that statute. These principles require that the government demonstrate: (1) that normal investigative procedures have failed or are unlikely to succeed; (2) particularity in describing the activity to be observed and the related offense; (3) a strictly limited duration for the surveillance; and (4) that surveillance is conducted to minimize the observation of innocent conduct. Because the government's application and the district court's order satisfied these constitutional requirements, the surveillance was lawful and the evidence obtained from it is admissible.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the governing standard for video surveillance warrants within the Fifth Circuit, clarifying that such surveillance constitutes a Fourth Amendment search distinct from less intrusive aerial observation. By adopting the constitutional core of Title III rather than its entire technical framework, the court created a flexible yet protective standard for emerging surveillance technologies not explicitly addressed by statute. This ruling provides a crucial analytical framework for balancing law enforcement's need to investigate criminal activity with the individual's right to privacy in the curtilage of their home, setting a key precedent for future cases involving technological surveillance.
