### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-40842 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. LENNY SALINAS, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:11-CR-1167-1

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant Lenny Salina s appeals his jury t rial c onviction on

o n e count of possession w ith intent to distribute in excess of 1 00 kilograms o f marijuana. H e a s s e r t s that the district court e rred in denying his motion to suppress. Regarding a n a ppeal of suppression issues, we review questions of law de n ovo and questions o f fact for cle a r e r ror. United States v. Cooke , 674 F.3d 491, 493 (5th Cir. 2012). U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Aug ust 16, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-40842 Document: 00512344556 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2013No. 12-40842

At the outset, we note th a t S a linas does not renew his challenge to the validity of the affidavits supporting the search w a rrants. An i s s u e must be briefed to be preserved. F E D

. R. AP P

. P. 28(a)(9); United States. v. Charles , 469 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2 006). Salinas has therefore abandoned his c h allenge to the validity of the affidavits by failing to brief the issue. Salinas c hallenges the district court’s determination that the p ickup truck and the horse trailer, where the marijuana was found, were not w ithin the curtilage of the home a t 2409 Alamo Street

. He argues that law enforcement agents, who had not yet obtained a search warrant, v i o l a t e d his Fourth Amendment rights b y ente r i n g t he p roperty without consent and conducting canine sniffs of t h e s e v ehicles, which were in a n area visible from the street. Salinas also contends that the agen t s conducted an improper knock-and-talk procedure when they ordered Laura Salinas (Laura) not to leave a nd proceeded to enter the property without consent. He asserts that h i s i n c ulpatory statements were the pro d u c t o f v iolation of the Fourth Amendment right and thus must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. When deciding whether a particular area is within the curt i l a g e of the home, a c ourt should l ook to the four factors set forth in United S tates v. Dunn , 480 U.S. 294, 301 (1987). These factors are applied to determine “whether the

area i n question harbors the intimate activity a ssociated with the s anctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life such th at the area is so intimately t i e d to the home itself that it should be placed under the h ome’s u m b r e l l a of Fourth Amendment protection.” Cooke , 674 F.3d a t 494 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Located a pproximately 15 feet from the home, the pickup truck and horse trailer were close enough that Dunn’s proximity f actor w eighs i n Salinas’s favor. However, as the area w as not enclosed, w as visible from the street, and was used for parking vehicles and e quine-related a ctivities, which are not “intimately tied to the home itself,” id. , the remaining factors weigh in favor of a determination
2 Case: 12-40842 Document: 00512344556 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2013No. 12-40842

that the area i n question was not curtilage, but r ather w a s a n o p en f ield. See Dunn , 480 U.S. at 302-03; Mack v . City ofAbilene , 461 F.3d 547, 554-55 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court did not reversibly err in determining that the area in question was an open field, not curtilage. See Dunn , 480 U.S. at 304. The foregoing determination largely resolves the issues presented by this appeal. “[O]nly the curtilage, not the neighboring op e n f i elds, warrants the Fourth Amendment protec t i ons that attach to the home.” Oliver v. United States , 466 U.S. 170, 180 ( 1984). “[T]here is no constitutional difference between police observations conducted while in a public place a nd while standing in the open fields.” Dunn , 480 U.S. at 304. We need only briefly addr e s s S a l inas’s challenge to the knock-and-talk procedure employed and the ensuing entry of the property. S a l i n a s lacks standing to assert a violation of Laura’s Fourth Amendment rights. See United States v . P

a c k , 612 F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir. 2010); Club Retro, L.L.C. v. Hilton , 568 F.3d 181, 195 n.5 (5th Cir. 2009). Finally, law enforcement agents did not violate the Fourth Amendment b y e n t ering the open f ield of the property following the knock-and-talk encounter, even if they had not obtained consent. See Cooke , 674 F.3d at 495; Ehlers v. Bogue , 626 F.2d 1314, 1315 ( 5th Cir. 1980). AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 12-40842 Document: 00512344556 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/16/2013