Opinion ID: 2967688
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Use of Property

Text: The third Dunn factor concerns the use of the area claimed to be curtilage. In Dunn, the Supreme Court deemed it especially significant that law enforcement officials possessed objective data indicating that the area claimed to be curtilage was being used for the production of illicit drugs and not for intimate activities of the home. Dunn, 480 U.S. at 302. As in Dunn, the officers here had observed marijuana growing in Breza’s garden, providing at least some indication that the garden was not used for the intimate activities of home life. Cf. Traynor, 990 F.2d at 1158 (concluding that shop used solely for growing marijuana was not within curtilage). And, although gardening is an activity often associated with the curtilage 8 UNITED STATES v. BREZA of a home, State v. Rogers, 638 A.2d 569, 573 (Vt. 1993), the district court found, in light of the size of the garden and the amount of effort Breza expended on it, that the garden was not just a domestic activity, this [was Breza’s] work, J.A. 172. We cannot say that this finding was clearly erroneous in light of the record before the district court. Therefore, the use of the area also weighs against a determination that the vegetable garden was within the curtilage of Breza’s home.