Opinion ID: 111833
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: I briefly recount the relevant facts.

Text: Respondent's ranch of 198 acres is encircled by a perimeter fence. The residence and its outbuildings are located in a clearing surrounded by woods, one-half mile from a road, down a chained, locked driveway. Neither the farmhouse nor its outbuildings are visible from the public road or from the fence that encircles the entire property. Once inside this perimeter fence, it is necessary to cross at least one more substantial fence before approaching Dunn's farmhouse or either of his two barns. United States v. Dunn, 674 F. 2d 1093, 1100 (CA5 1982). The front of the barn involved here is enclosed by a wooden fence. Its back and sides were composed of brick, metal siding, and large metal sliding doors and were completely enclosed. The front of the barn was partially composed of a wooden wall with windows. The remainder was enclosed by waist-high wood slatting and wooden gates. At the time of [the] agent['s] visits . . . , the top half of the front of the barn was covered by a fishnet type material from the ceiling down to the top of the locked wooden gates. To see inside the barn it was necessary to stand immediately next to the netting [under the barn's overhang]. From as little as a few feet distant, visibility into the barn was obscured by the netting and slatting. 766 F. 2d 880, 883 (CA5 1985). The issues are whether the barn was within the protected curtilage of the house, and whether the conduct of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agents  circling the large barn, being unable to see inside through the back or sides, climbing a wooden fence at its front, entering its overhang and going into the immediate proximity of the fishnet and wooden gate front enclosure  infringed upon Dunn's reasonable expectation of privacy in the barn or its contents. Id., at 884.