Court Opinion

ID: 9467634
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:52:45.460301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:26.423589
License: Public Domain

CHOY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in result:
I concur in the result reached by Judge Hanson but I base my decision on the cases alluded to in his footnote 7.
The activities of Officer Zuniga are not properly characterized as a search because he had a right to be where he was when he made the observations. Zuniga was with the landlord attempting to locate Wheeler to settle a civil dispute. “It is well settled that visual observation by a law enforcement officer situated in a place where he has a right to be is not a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment.” United States v. Orozco, 590 F.2d 789, 792 (9th Cir.1979); United States v. Copien, 541 F.2d 211, 214 (9th Cir.1976).
Wheeler had no legitimate expectation of privacy from visual intrusion into his yard. A six-foot fence such as Wheeler’s could easily be looked over by a person six feet or taller in height. In addition there was a gap in the fence through which anyone was able to see the yard and some of its contents. Wheeler also had tires stacked up next to the fence which any person passing by could stand on to look into the yard. I base my decision solely on these grounds and therefore do not reach the issue of whether an intrusion into an area where a person had an expectation of privacy can be justified by other legitimate reasons.