# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 30 92

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ri ch ard W es tm or el an d M at hi as

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Dav en po rt

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 1, 2 01 3
Fil ed : J ul y

31 , 20 13

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, BEAM, an d B YE, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BYE, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Ri ch ard W es tm or el an d Mat hi as was in di ct ed wit h on e co un t of co ns pi racy to

m an uf act ur e m ari

juan a in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( b) (1 )(B) , 84 6. He ple ad ed

gu il ty, co nd it io ne d on hi s rig ht to ch al le ng e th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of hi s m ot io n 1

The Hon or ab le James E. Grit zn er, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1

fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.to su pp res s ev id en ce ari si ng fro m M o u n t Pl eas an t, Io wa, Po li ce Offi cer Ly le

Mu rray’ s ob se rv at io n of m ari juan a pl an ts gr owi ng in Mat hi as ’s ba ck y ard

. Mat hi as

no w app eal s. We affir m

.

I

On May 10

, 20 11

, Offi cer M u r r a y rece iv ed in fo rm at io n fro m an an on y m ou s

so ur ce tha t so m eo ne was gro win g m ari juan a p la nt s i n a ba ck y ard on th e 3 00 bl oc k

of So ut h Je ffer so n St reet in Mo un t Pl eas an t. Offi cer Mu rray’ s in ve st ig at io n le d hi m

to co nc lu de th e so ur ce ha d be en refe rri ng to th e on ly co m pl et el y en cl os ed ba ck y ard

on th e bl oc k, whi ch was as so ci at ed wit h a ho us e in whi ch Mat hi as an d hi s wife li ve d. 2

Mat hi as ’s ba ck y ard was e n c l o s e d by a ta ll fen ce co ns tru ct ed of up rig ht

woo de n sl at s sp aced ap pr ox im at el y a qu art er-i nc h ap art

. A fte r Offi cer Mu rray’ s

in it ia l at te m

pt s to vi ew th e en cl os ed area were un su cces sf ul

, he co nt act ed a ne ig hb or

li vi ng on th e ad

jacen t pro pe rty to th e no rth of Mat hi as ’s res id en ce. Offi cer M ur ray
ob ta in ed th e ne ig hb or ’s p erm is si on to walk al on g th e ne ig hb or ’s s ou th ern pr op ert y

li ne

. Offi cer Mu rray was , ho wev er, un aware Mat hi as ’s fen ce was se t ap pr ox im at el y
ei gh te en in ch es so ut h of th e pr op ert y li ne

. As a res ul t, whe n walk in g al on g th e no rth

si de of th e fen ce, Offi cer Mu rray w a s a ct ua ll y ph y si cal ly tre sp as si ng al on g an
ei gh te en -in ch st rip of g ras s an d wee ds on Mat hi as ’s pro pe rty.

W hi le on th e st rip

, Offi cer Mu rr a y c a me w i th in an in ch of th e fen ce an d,

w i t h o u t m an ip ul at in g it

, lo ok ed th ro ug h th e ga ps in th e fen ce in to th e ba ck ya r d

. The re, he sa w a nu m

be r of po tt ed

, sp ro ut in g m ari juan a pl an ts

. Offi cer Mur ray th en

ap pl ie d fo r an d rece iv ed a se arch warra nt fo r Mat hi as , Mat hi as ’s w i fe, an d th ei r

In res ol vi ng th e m ot io n, th e di st ric t co ur t as su m ed th e la nd was , as rep res en te d 2 by Ma th ia s, act ua ll y own ed by Ma th ia s’s m ot he r-i n- la w. Be c a u se Mat hi as res id ed
in th e ho us e on th e pr op ert y , fo r eas e of refe ren ce we refe r to th e la nd in qu es ti on as be lo ng in g t o M at hi as

.

-2

-res id en ce. Upo n ex ecu ti on of th e warra nt

, po li ce se iz ed 27 7 m ari juan a pl an ts

, sc al es ,
pa ck ag in g m at eri al , $1 ,40 0.0 0 i n c ur ren cy , and dri ed m ari juan a.

A fed eral gr an d jury in di ct ed M a t h i a s wit h on e co un t of co ns pi rin g to

m an uf act ur e m ari

juan a. Mat hi as m ov ed th e co ur t to su pp res s ev id en ce ari si ng fro m
Offi cer Mu rray’ s ob se rv at io ns , arg ui ng th e tre sp as s an d ob se rv at io n of th e ba ck y ard

ha d vi ol at ed th e Fo ur th Amend m en t. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, in 3

pe rti ne nt pa rt co n c l ud in g th e ei gh te en -in ch st rip of la nd was an op en fie ld fo r th e

pu rp os es of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t and Offi cer Mur ray’ s acti on s whil e o n t he st rip

ha d no t vi ol at ed th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. Mat hi as th en pl ead ed gu il ty pu rs ua nt to a pl ea ag reem en t, co nd it io ne d on hi s rig ht to ap pe al th e d e n i a l of th e m ot io n to

su pp res s. 4

II

O n ap pe al

, Mat hi as arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d whe n it de ni ed hi s m ot io n

to su pp res s. On rev ie w of a de ni al of a m ot io n to su pp res s, we as se ss fin di ng s of fact

fo r cl ear erro r an d whe th er ch a l l e ng ed act io ns vi ol at ed th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t de

no vo . Uni te d S ta te s v . Inm an , 55 8 F .3d 74 2, 7 45 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

Mat hi as co nt en ds Offi cer Mu rray vi ol at e d h i s rig ht s un de r th e Fo ur th

Am e n d men t

, arg ui ng (1 ) th e st rip of la nd fro m whi ch Offi cer Mu rray ob se rv ed hi s

Mat hi as al so m ov ed to su pp res s th e se arch w ar ra nt as unsu pported by pr ob ab le 3

cau se

. The di st ric t co ur t al so de ni ed t h a t po rti on of th e m ot io n. Mat hi as do es no t ch al le ng e th e p ro ba bl e cau se rul in g o n a pp eal

.

Mat hi as al so fil ed an un su cces sf ul m ot io n to reco ns id er. Alt ho ug h Mat hi as 4

in it ia ll y in di cat ed he al so in te nd ed to ap pe al th e d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n to reco ns id er, he fai le d to pr es erv e th e de ni al fo r ap pe al by n ot li st in g i t a s a n i s su e or pr es en ti ng

an y arg um en t ab ou t it

. See Hay s v. Hof fm an , 32 5 F.3 d 98 2, 98 6 n.2 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (ci ti ng Fed .R.App .P. 28 (a)( 5) ).

-3

-ba ck y ard was cu rt i la ge ; an d (2 ) Offi cer Mu rray’ s act io ns whi le on th e st rip

co ns ti tu te d a n u nl awfu l s earc h.

A

Mat hi as fir st co nt en ds th e st rip of la nd on whi ch Offi cer Mu rray tre sp as se d was

cu rti la ge an d arg ue s he ha d a reas on ab le e x p e c t at io n of pr iv acy in th e st rip

. The

go ve rn m en t ur ge s us to rev ie w th e di st ric t cou rt’s curt il ag e de te rm in at io n de no vo

. Alt ho ug h we ack no wled ge ot he r ci rcu it s whi ch ha ve co ns id ered th e st an da rd of

rev ie w aft er th e Su pr em e Co ur t is su ed Orn el as v. Uni te d St at es , 51 7 U.S. 69 0 (1 99 6)

,
ap pl y de no vo rev ie w, Eig ht h Ci rcu it pr eced en t req ui res us to rev ie w cu rti la ge
de te rm in at io ns fo r cl ear erro r. Uni te d St at es v. W el ls

, 64 8 F.3 d 67 1, 67 6- 77 (8 th Ci r.

20 11 ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Ult im at el y , ho wev er, th e st an da rd of rev ie w is im m at eri al

to th is is su e b ecau se we wou ld co nc lu de un de r ei th er s ta nd ard th at th e st rip of l an d

co ns ti tu te s an op en fie ld . See i d.

“ T he Fo ur th Am en dm en t pr ot ect s th e cu rti la ge of an in di vi du al ’s res ide nc e, but

no t su rro un di ng op en fie ld s.” Uni te d St at es v. Bo y st er, 43 6 F.3 d 98 6, 99 1 (8t h Cir.

20 06 ) (ci ti ng Hes te r v. Uni te d St at es , 26 5 U.S. 57

, 59 (1 92 4) ). “ Cu rti la ge is th e area

to whi ch ex te nd s th e in ti m at e act iv it y ass oc ia te d wi th th e sa nc ti ty o f a m an ’s h om e

an d th e pr iv aci es of li fe, and is typic al ly co m pr is ed of la nd ad

joi ni ng a ho us e, of

te n
wit hi n so m e type of en cl os ur e su ch as a fen ce.” Id

. (ci ta ti on s an d in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s om it te d)

. F or th e pu rp os es of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t, an op en fie ld m ay be

an y “ un oc cu pi ed or un de ve lo pe d area ou ts id e of th e cu rti la ge ” an d “ ne ed be ne it he r ‘ope n’ no r a ‘fiel d’ as th os e te rm s are us ed in co m m on sp eech .” Uni te d St at es v.

Dun n, 48 0 U.S. 29 4, 30 4 (1 98 7) (q uo ti ng Oli ve r v. Uni te d St at es , 46 6 U.S. 17 0, 18 0

n.1 1 (1 98 4) ).

In as se ss in g whe th er a pa rti cu la r area is cu rti la ge , we de te rm in e “ whe th er th e

area in qu es ti on is so in ti m at el y ti ed to th e ho m e it s e l f ” t h a t w e sh ou ld ex te nd th e

-4

-Fo ur th Am en dm en t’s pr ot ect io n to it

. W el ls

, 6 4 8 F

. 3 d a t 67 7 (q uo ti ng Dun n, 48 0

U.S. at 30 1)

. W e co ns id er “ fact or s th at be ar on whe th er an in di vi du al reas on ab ly m ay

ex pe ct th at th e area in qu es ti on sh ou ld be tre at ed as th e ho m e it se lf.” Dun n, 48 0 U.S.

at 30 0 (q uo ti ng Oli ve r, 46 6 U.S. at 18 0)

. The se fact or s are “ th e pr ox im it y of th e area
cl ai m ed to be cu rti la ge to th e ho m e, whe th er th e area is in cl ud ed wit hi n an en cl os ur e

su rro un di ng th e ho m e, th e na tu re of th e us es to whi ch th e area is p u t

, a nd th e st ep s

ta ke n by th e res id en t to pr ot ect th e area fro m ob se rv at io n by pe op le pa ss in g by.” Id

. ( c i ta ti on s om it te d)

. The Su pr em e Co ur t “ id en ti fie d th e cen tra l co m po ne nt of t h i s

in qu iry as whe th er th e area ha rb or s th e in ti m at e act iv it y as so ci at ed wit h th e sa nc ti ty

of a m an ’s ho m e an d th e pr iv aci es of li fe.” Id

. (ci ta ti on an d in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d)

.

The b a l a n ce of th e Dun n fact or s weig hs in fav or of th e area be in g an op en
fie ld

. Th e s t r i p of la nd was cl os e to Mat hi as ’s ho m e, whi ch weig hs in fav or of it

be in g cu rti la ge

. The rem ai ni ng fact or s, ho wev er, al l weig h in fav or of th e st rip be in g

an op en fie ld

. The st rip of la nd was no t in cl ud ed wit hi n Mat hi as ’s fen ce. In ad di ti on , th ere is no in di cat io n Mat hi as or hi s wife pu t th e rel at iv el y un de ve lo pe d st rip to us es

as so ci at ed wit h th e sa nc ti ty of th e ho m e or pr iv aci es of li fe. Si m il arl y , th ere is no

in di cat io n Mat hi as m ad e an y effo rts to pr ot ect th e area fro m ob se rv at io n by pa ss ers

b y as th e st rip of la nd rem ai ne d op en to vi ew. Mat hi as ’s on ly arg um en t is th a t t h e
di st ric t cou rt sh ou ld ha ve pl aced m or e si gn ifi can ce on th e pr ox im it y fact or th an th e

ot he rs

. He, ho wev er, ad va nc es no pe rs ua si ve gr ou nd s fo r do in g so

. W e are

co nv in ced th e st rip co ns ti tu te d an op en fie ld fo r th e pu rp os es of th e Fo ur th

Am en dm en t. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ct co ur t d id no t cl earl y err i n s o c on cl ud in g.

B

Mat hi as ne xt co nt en ds Offi cer Mu rray’ s act io ns whi le st an di ng on th e st rip of

la nd vi ol at ed th e Fo ur t h Am en dm en t. Alt ho ug h Mat hi as fo cu se s hi s arg um en ts

pr im ari ly on Offi cer Mu rray’ s act io ns be in g a tre sp as so ry se arch un de r th e rat io na le

-5

-of Uni te d St at es v. Jo ne s, 13 2 S. Ct

. 94 5 (2 01 2 )

, h e al so arg ue s Offi cer Mu rray

vi ol at ed hi s re as on ab le ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy. App el la nt ’s Br. 19

.

1. Tres pa ss or y

Sear ch

Mat hi as ’s co nt en ti on th at Offi cer Mu r r ay ’s act io ns co ns ti tu te d a tre sp as so ry

se arch un de r Jo ne s can no t su ccee d. In Jo ne s, t h e S u p r e me Co ur t he ld a ph y si cal

tre sp as s fo r th e pu rp os e of ga th eri ng in fo rm at i on co ns ti tu te s a tre sp as so ry se arch

pr oh ib it ed by th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. I d

. at 95 1- 53

. A Jo ne s tre sp as so ry se arch

, ho wev er, req ui res th e ch al le ng ed in tru si on to be in to a co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect ed area

en um erat ed wit hi n th e te xt of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. See id

. at 95 3 n.8 (“ Thu s, ou r

th eo ry is no t th at th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t is co nc ern ed wit h an y te ch ni cal tre sp as s th at

le d to th e ga th eri ng of ev id en ce.• The Fo ur th Am en dm en t pr ot ect s ag ai ns t

tre sp as so ry se arch es on ly wit h reg ard to th os e i t e m s

. . . it en um erat es .”) (in te rn al

ci ta ti on an d qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. As Office r Mu rray was wit hi n an op en fie ld

whe n he lo ok ed th ro ug h Mat hi as ’s fen ce, hi s act io ns di d no t co ns ti tu te a tre sp as so ry

se arch

. See Oli ve r, 46 6 U.S. at 17 6 (h ol di ng Fo ur th Am en dm en t pr ot ect io n do es no t

ex te nd to op en fie ld s)

.

2. Re as on ab le Exp ect at io n o f Pri va cy

The S u pr em e Co ur t al so m ad e cl ear a ch al le ng ed act io n m ay vi ol at e an

in di vi du al ’s Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s as ei th er a tre sp as so ry se arch or a vi ol at io n of

a reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n of p r i v a c y

. See Jo ne s, 13 2 S. Ct

. at 95 2 (“ [T]he Katz

re as on ab le -ex pe ct at io n- of -p riv acy te st ha s be en ad de d to

, no t su bs ti tu te d fo r, th e

co m m on -la w tre sp as so ry te st .”). The qu es ti on o f w h e t h er a pe rs on ha s a

co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect ed reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in an area req ui res us to

as k (1) whet he r th e in di vi du al m an ife st ed a su bjec ti ve ex pe ct at io n of pri va cy in th e

area ; and (2) whet he r so ci et y is wil li ng to reco gn iz e th e ex pe ct at io n a s re as on ab le

. Cal ifo rn ia v. Ci rao lo , 47 6 U.S. 2 07 , 21 1 (1 98 6)

.

-6

-It is un di sp ut ed Mat hi as ’s ba ck y ard co ns ti tu te d cu rti la ge

. Howev er, “ [t]ha t th e

ar ea is wit hi n th e cu rti la ge do es no t it se lf ba r al l po li ce ob se rv at io n.” Id

. at 21 3.

Mat hi as ’s co nt en ti on s reg ard in g hi s ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy res t on two po in ts

, Offi cer

Mu rray’ s tre sp as s an d th e pr es en ce of th e fen ce en cl os in g th e ba ck y ard

. W e st art by

ad dr es si ng th e tr es pa ss

.

In Dun n, th e Su pr em e Co ur t co ns id ered th e cas e of two la w-e n fo rcem en t

of fic ers who ha d tre sp as se d on to Dun n’s la nd to sh in e fla sh li gh ts in to th e in te rio r of

a ba rn pr ot ect ed by a lo ck ed ga te

. Id

. at 29 7- 98

. The Co ur t co nc lu de d th e po rti on of

Dun n’s la nd on whi ch th e ag en ts ha d tre sp as se d co n s t i t u t e d a n op en fie ld fo r th e

pu rp os es of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. Id

. at 30 1. Ass um in g fo r th e sa ke of arg um en t

th e in te rio r of th e ba rn was pr ot ect ed by th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t, th e Co ur t reas on ed

no co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n ha d oc cu rred whe n la w e n f o rcem en t tre sp as se d on to

Dun n’s la nd to reac h th ei r va nt ag e po in t, whe re th ey m erel y st oo d an d pe ered in to th e
ba rn

. Id

. at 30 4. The Co ur t co nc lu de d th e Co ns ti tu ti on di d no t fo rb id th e ag en ts fro m

m ak in g t he ir o bs erv at io ns fro m th ei r po si ti on in th e o pe n fi el d. Id

.

The sa m e reas on in g ho ld s he re. As in Dun n, a po li ce of fic er si m pl y ob se rv ed

a pr ot ect ed area —t he ba ck y ard —fr om an un pr ot ect ed on e. Acco rd in gl y , Offi cer’s

Mu rray’ s tre sp as s was no t of co ns ti tu ti on al si gn i f i can ce. See id

. (“ [T]here is no

co ns ti tu ti on al di ffer en ce be twee n p o l i ce ob se rv at io ns co nd uc te d whi le in a pu bl ic
pl ace an d whi le st an di ng in th e op en fie ld s.”) ; se e al so Oli ve r, 46 6 U.S. at 18 1 (“ [A]n

in di vi du al ha s n o le gi ti m at e ex pe ct at io n th at op en fie ld s wil l rem ai n free fro m

warra nt le ss in tru si on by gov ern m en t o ffi cers .”).

W e tu rn no w to th e fen ce. The pr es en ce of th e fen ce is su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h

th at Mat hi as m an ife st ed a su bjec ti ve ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in t he ba ck y ard

. Ac c o r di ng ly, th e on ly rem ai ni ng qu es ti on is whe th er so ci et y wou ld reco gn iz e th e

ex pe ct at io n as r e a s o n a bl e. W e co nc lu de it wou ld no t. “ [T]he m ere fact th at an

in di vi du al ha s ta ke n m eas ur es to res tri ct so m e vi ews of hi s act iv it ie s [d oe s no t]

-7

-pr ecl ud e an off ic er’s o bs erv at io ns fro m

a pu bl ic va nt ag e p oi nt wher e he ha s a ri gh t

to be a n d w h ic h ren de rs th e act iv it ie s cl earl y vi si bl e.” Ci rao lo

, 47 6 U.S. at 21 3
(ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Kno tt s, 4 60 U.S. 27 6, 2 82 (19 83 )).

Here, Mat hi as ’s fe n c e ha d ga ps (al be it sm al l on es ) be twee n th e up rig ht sl at s

ren de rin g th e in te rio r of th e ba ck y ard vi si bl e to th e na ke d ey e of so m eo ne st an di ng

on th e st rip who to ok no st ep s to m an ip ul at e th e fen ce. “ W ha t a pe r so n kn owi ng ly

ex po se s to th e pu bl ic

, ev en in hi s own ho m e or of fic e, is no t a su bjec t of Fo u rth

Am en dm en t pr ot ect io n.”• I d

. ( q u o t in g Katz v. Uni te d St at es , 38 9 U.S. 34 7, 35 1
(1 96 7) ); s ee als o Well s, 6 48 F.3d at 6 78 (up ho ld in g t he vi su al ob se rv at io n o f it em s

in a li vi ng ro om th ro ug h an un co ve red win do w). Acco rd in gl y , al th ou gh Mat hi as ha d

a s u bjec ti ve ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in th e ba ck y ard

, th e ga ps in th e fen ce, th ro ug h

whi ch th e ba ck y ard co ul d be se en un ai de d, ren de red th e ex pe ct at io n no t on e so ci et y
is wil li ng to reco gn iz e as reas on ab le

.

III

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-