United States v. Rodrigo Sandoval
2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 581, 2000 Daily Journal DAR 907, 200 F.3d 659 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual can have a reasonable expectation of privacy, protected by the Fourth Amendment, in a closed tent on public land, even if they lack explicit permission to camp there, thus requiring a warrant for a search.
Facts:
- In early 1997, state and federal officials initiated an investigation into marijuana cultivation in Idaho.
- The investigation led to the seizure of marijuana from sixteen growing sites.
- One of the marijuana growing sites was situated on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land.
- At this BLM land site, federal agents entered a makeshift tent.
- The tent was fully enclosed on all four sides, preventing visibility of its contents from the outside.
- Inside the tent, agents discovered a medicine bottle bearing Rodrigo Sandoval's name.
Procedural Posture:
- Rodrigo Sandoval was indicted on drug and conspiracy charges.
- Before trial, Sandoval filed a motion to suppress evidence, alleging that agents had entered his tent without a search warrant and that the evidence was therefore inadmissible.
- The district court denied Sandoval's motion to suppress, holding that he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy because the tent was on BLM land, and thus a search warrant was not required.
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 an individual have a reasonable expectation of privacy, protected by the Fourth Amendment, in a closed tent located on public land, such that a warrant is required to search it?
Opinions:
Majority - Michael Daly Hawkins
Yes, an individual does have a reasonable expectation of privacy, protected by the Fourth Amendment, in a closed tent located on public land, even if they lack explicit permission to be there. The court applied the two-part test from Katz v. United States to determine whether a warrant-less search violates the Fourth Amendment: (1) whether the individual manifested a subjective expectation of privacy, and (2) whether society is willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable. For the subjective expectation, Sandoval demonstrated this by locating the tent in a heavily vegetated and virtually impenetrable area, keeping it closed on all sides to prevent outside viewing, and leaving a personal item (a prescription medicine bottle) inside. The court rejected the government's contention that engaging in illegal activity or lacking permission negated a subjective expectation, citing United States v. Gooch. For the objective reasonableness, the court extended its prior rulings in LaDuke v. Nelson (tent on private property) and Gooch (tent on public campground) to a tent on BLM land. The court reasoned that the reasonableness of the expectation does not depend on whether one has permission to camp on public land, as such a distinction would arbitrarily grant or revoke Fourth Amendment rights. The court distinguished Zimmerman v. Bishop Estate, which involved a squatter in a private residence, on two grounds: first, camping on public land, even without permission, is fundamentally different from squatting in a private residence (which is clearly off-limits), as public land may appear open for camping; and second, Sandoval was not instructed to vacate, unlike the squatters in Zimmerman, and the rules for recreational use of the BLM land were unclear and disputed. Therefore, the warrant-less search violated the Fourth Amendment.
Analysis:
This case significantly expands Fourth Amendment protections to temporary shelters on public lands, clarifying that a subjective expectation of privacy is not negated by unauthorized occupation or illegal activity. It establishes a critical distinction between temporary encampments on public land and unauthorized occupation of private property, reinforcing the idea that the Fourth Amendment protects people in their private spaces, regardless of ownership status or legality of presence. The ruling ensures that even those without explicit permission to use public land retain a basic level of privacy against warrant-less governmental intrusion, impacting future cases involving searches of temporary dwellings in public areas.
