Opinion ID: 204000
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Video surveillance of Bucci's residence

Text: Law enforcement authorities installed a video camera on a utility pole across the street from Bucci's home and conducted surveillance of the front of his house for eight months. The camera was placed in a fixed location that enabled agents to monitor activity on the driveway [and] afforded agents a view of the garage door and inside the garage when the door was open. The video camera had no remote capabilities that allowed agents to either change the view or magnification of the camera without being physically at the scene. Before a court can address the merits of a motion to suppress, see United States v. Rodriguez-Lozada, 558 F.3d 29, 37 (1st Cir.2009), petition for cert filed, (U.S. May 19, 2009) (No. 09-5537), the defendant must first establish that his own Fourth Amendment rights were violated by showing that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched. [5] See United States v. Rheault, 561 F.3d 55, 59 (1st Cir.2009), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. June 18, 2009) (No. 08-11022). To establish such an expectation of privacy, Bucci must show that 1) he has exhibited an actual, subjective expectation of privacy in the area searched; and 2) such subjective expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as objectively reasonable. Id. (citing Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979)). Bucci has failed to establish either a subjective or an objective expectation of privacy in the front of his home, as viewed by the camera. We focus here only on the lack of a reasonable objective expectation of privacy because this failure is so clear. See United States v. Vilches-Navarrete, 523 F.3d 1, 14 (1st Cir.2008), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 208, 172 L.Ed.2d 168 (2008). There are no fences, gates or shrubbery located in front of [Bucci's residence] that obstruct the view of the driveway or the garage from the street. Both [are] plainly visible. An individual does not have an expectation of privacy in items or places he exposes to the public. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) ([T]he Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.); see also California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 213, 106 S.Ct. 1809, 90 L.Ed.2d 210 (1986). That legal principle is dispositive here. See Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31-33, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001) (noting lawfulness of unenhanced visual surveillance of a home).