United States v. Ronald Coleman, Jr.
923 F.3d 450 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A shared, unenclosed driveway in a multi-unit condominium complex, which is not protected from public view or access, is not considered part of the home's curtilage for Fourth Amendment purposes. Therefore, a law enforcement officer's warrantless physical entry onto such a driveway to install a tracking device on a vehicle does not constitute an illegal search.
Facts:
- Law enforcement agents began investigating Eddie Powell, a known drug dealer, and a cooperating defendant identified Ronald Coleman as one of Powell's suppliers.
- Officers observed Coleman's vehicles, a Buick Enclave and a brown Trailblazer, making short visits to Powell's house consistent with drug sales.
- On April 11, 2017, agents observed Coleman arrive in the Trailblazer and sell cocaine to the cooperating defendant at Powell's house.
- An agent discovered Coleman had prior felony drug convictions and that his vehicles were registered to his father, a common tactic for drug traffickers.
- Coleman lived in a condominium complex that had a 'PRIVATE PROPERTY' sign at the entrance but no gate or barrier to entry.
- Coleman's condominium unit was in a building shared with three other families, and his unenclosed driveway was a single concrete slab shared with a neighbor.
- An ATF agent, acting on a warrant to track the vehicle, walked onto this shared driveway and attached a GPS tracker to Coleman's Enclave, which was parked in front of his garage.
- On May 10, 2017, data from the tracker, combined with surveillance, showed Coleman driving the Enclave directly from his condominium to Powell's home to conduct another cocaine sale.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal magistrate judge issued warrants authorizing law enforcement to install tracking devices on Ronald Coleman's vehicles.
- After gathering more evidence, including from the vehicle tracker, law enforcement obtained a search warrant for Coleman's condominium from a different federal magistrate judge.
- Following the search and his arrest, Coleman was indicted in the U.S. District Court on federal drug and firearm charges.
- Coleman filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the warrants lacked probable cause and that the tracker installation constituted an unconstitutional search of his curtilage.
- The U.S. District Court denied the motion to suppress.
- Coleman entered a conditional guilty plea, which allowed him to appeal the district court's denial of his suppression motion.
- Coleman (appellant) appealed the denial of his motion to suppress to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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 a law enforcement officer's warrantless physical intrusion onto a shared, unenclosed condominium driveway for the purpose of installing a GPS tracking device on a vehicle violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches?
Opinions:
Majority - Boggs, Circuit Judge
No. The agent's entry onto Coleman's driveway did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the driveway does not constitute part of the home's curtilage. The court applied the four-factor test from United States v. Dunn to determine if the driveway was curtilage: (1) proximity to the home, (2) whether the area is within an enclosure, (3) the nature of the area's use, and (4) steps taken to protect the area from observation. While the driveway was proximate to the home, the other three factors weighed against it being curtilage. The driveway was not enclosed, it was shared with a neighbor and accessible to other residents, and Coleman had taken no steps to obstruct the view from passersby. The court distinguished this case from Collins v. Virginia, where the driveway was partially enclosed and more intimately connected to the home. The court found this case factually similar to prior Sixth Circuit cases where unenclosed, publicly visible driveways were held not to be curtilage. Therefore, the agent did not conduct a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment by entering the driveway to install the tracker.
Analysis:
This decision refines the application of the Fourth Amendment's curtilage doctrine in the context of multi-family housing. By distinguishing the Supreme Court's ruling in Collins v. Virginia, the court signals that shared, open-access areas like the driveway here are less likely to receive constitutional protection than the private driveways of single-family homes. The ruling provides law enforcement with clearer guidance on conducting surveillance in common areas of residential complexes without a warrant for the physical trespass itself. It underscores that a resident's reasonable expectation of privacy is significantly diminished in areas that are not enclosed, are shared with others, and are left open to public view.
