In a very recent decision, the Supreme Court has fortified the individual’s Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable (without a warrant) police searches and seizures. In Collins v. Virginia, the police suspected (due to the defendant’s own Facebook posts, of course) a stolen motorcycle was in the defendant’s driveway under a tarp. The officer went onto the driveway, lifted the tarp to view the motorcycle and its identification numbers, and confirmed the motorcycle was stolen. The officer did not have a warrant to do any of this. This information was used to arrest and convict the defendant. The trial court and Virginia Supreme Court upheld the search and the resulting evidence.
The Supreme Court reversed in an 8-1 decision, holding that (1.) the area of the driveway where the motorcycle was parked was part of the curtilage of the home (an area adjacent to the home where the activity of home life extends), (2.) a warrant is needed to search one’s home and curtilage, and (3.) the automobile exception permitting the warrantless search of vehicles (if probable cause exists) does not permit the police to conduct a warrantless search when the vehicle is parked on the home’s curtilage. Slate did an excellent analysis.
One question still unanswered is how fluid is the definition of “curtilage.” In Collins, the motorcycle was parked and covered in a partial enclosure next to the house (and sharing one of its walls with the house itself) at the top of the driveway that was even with (literally “adjacent to” the house itself. The Collins Court specifically rejected an argument that the Fourth Amendment curtilage protection only applies to garages, noting that it would be a deprivation of rights to those without the financial means to afford a house with a garage. However, what if the motorcycle was parked at the bottom of the driveway? The middle? Does the length of the driveway matter? Does the owner have to show he did everything possible to get the vehicle as close to the house as possible? What if one has a very long driveway? What if the entire property is fenced in, with a gate at the driveway entrance? Does it all count as being “adjacent to” the home?
In United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 302 (1987), the Court noted the definition of curtilage should focus on four factors “the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by.” Of course, these will be determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the layout of the property and the uses thereof. In State v. Mitchem, 2014-Ohio-2366, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 2308 (1st Dist. June 4, 2014), for example, a driveway was held not to be curtilage, while the front porch was curtilage. And two Illinois cases also suggest that there is no Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in one’s driveway (See People v. Petersen, 110 Ill.App.3d 647 (4th Dist. 1982), and People v. Scott, 249 Ill.App.3d 597 (2d Dist. 1993)). There are certainly many more examples.
The Law Firm of David G. Sigale, P.C. was founded to serve the legal needs of the Chicago metropolitan area. Mr. Sigale has counseled and represented corporate and individual clients across the United States and internationally. He believes in protecting Americans from improper attempts by the government to infringe upon their constitutional rights. His firm services clients in Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall and Will Counties, and as well as reviews matters in other locations on a case-by-case basis.
Please view the information on his website, and contact the firm for a consultation.
