Opinion ID: 795153
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Shielding from public view

Text: 25 As for the fourth Dunn factor, the district court concluded that no steps were taken by Defendants to limit access to this walkway even when they were clearly aware utility employees frequented this area. Defendants' main counter-argument is that a number of trees and bushes restricted the view of the sideyard from the street. Even if this is true, it is still clear that the utility meter and gate were visible from the street and that the sideyard was connected to the driveway by a paved walkway that was accessible to any and all persons wishing to enter upon it. See LaFave, supra, at 599-603 (In the course of urban life, we have come to expect various members of the public to enter upon such a driveway, e.g., brush salesmen, newspaper boys, postmen, Girl Scout cookie sellers, distressed motorists, neighbors, friends. Any one of them may be reasonably expected to report observations of criminal activity to the police.) (quoting State v. Corbett, 15 Or.App. 470, 516 P.2d 487, 490 (1973)). 26 Furthermore, since the electric meter was located in this area, the Cousinses knew that utility employees would be in the area at least once a month to read the meter. The Cousinses claim that these employees were not uninvited visitors, but that they were invited as the result of an easement to which the Cousins voluntarily agreed. The Cousinses, however, could have had no reasonable expectation that such visitors would protect the Cousinses' privacy; the utility employees could potentially report any illegal conduct observed while on the property (as happened in this case). Inviting such persons onto their property further shows that the Cousinses did not take steps to protect the area from observation. See United States v. Domitrovich, 1995 WL 358624, at  (9th Cir.1995) (unpublished) (affirming the district court's conclusion that an area was not curtilage, in part because the defendant had regularly allowed meter readers access to the area around the home), aff'g 852 F.Supp. 1460, 1467-71 (E.D.Wash. 1994) (Meter readers were afforded unrestricted access to the area around the residence while going to and from the meter.... [Thus,] the defendant's actions were not entirely consistent with his professed zeal for privacy.). Cf. United States v. Depew, 8 F.3d 1424, 1428 (9th Cir.1993) (finding that the fourth Dunn factor weighed in the defendant's favor, in part because he had a post office box in town and read his own meter so that no postal worker or meter reader came to his premises), overruled on other grounds by Johnson, 256 F.3d at 913 n. 4; State v. Poulos, 149 Or.App. 351, 942 P.2d 901, 904 n. 2 (1997) (concluding that the defendant had shown an intent to exclude the public, in part because by agreement with the electric company, defendant read his own meter and reported it to the company). 27 Allowing meter readers on the premises is not necessarily dispositive, but here the fact that the area was accessed by a walkway and was not enclosed, coupled with the fact that the Defendants knew the area was frequented by a meter reader who might be expected to report observed illegal activity, leads to a conclusion that this fourth factor also weighs against a finding of curtilage.