CALIFORNIA COURT UPHOLDS WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF PROPERTY

A California appellate court denied an appeal based upon a claim that sheriff’s deputies illegally entered the curtilage of a residence to search the property. The curtilage of a property is a somewhat vague property law term referring to “the land immediately surrounding and associated with the home.” That area beyond the curtilage is considered “open fields.”

Like the house itself the curtilage is protected by the Fourth Amendment from unreasonable warrantless searches. The area considered open fields is not protected. Richard Lieng lived in a rural area of Mendocino County, California. On two occasions, without search warrants, Mendocino County sheriff’s deputies drove onto a long private driveway used by Lieng and at least three of his neighbors. Richard and Tony Lieng were convicted of marijuana related offenses as a result of marijuana found as a result of a search warrant of the property. At some point the deputies got out of their vehicle and walked the rest of the way up the driveway. While they could not see into the residence they could smell the odor of growing marijuana, coming from a metal workshop along the driveway.

The appellate court considered four factors in determining whether the deputies violated Lieng’s Fourth Amendment rights by entering the curtilage of the residence. The first factor is “the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home.” Generally the curtilage is no more than 100 yards from the house. While the evidence showed that at one point the deputies walked up to the shed that was 150 yards from the house, there was no evidence showing how close to the house the deputies.Therefore the court sided with the state on the proximity factor. The second factor is whether the area is enclosed. While there was a gate it was open and there was no fence shutting the area off. The third factor is the use of the land. In this case it was a driveway available to the public. The final factor is efforts taken to protect the area. While on cross examination the deputy was asked about the presence of a no trespassing sign, he did not remember it and there does not appear to have been any direct evidence that it existed. Considering the factors the court found that the deputies did not violate the curtilage.

Several other factors were raised. The deputies used night vision goggles. The court ruled that the goggles were permissible. Unlike a thermal imaging device the goggles do not allow the officers to determine conditions inside the residence which are the heart of Fourth Amendment privacy rights.

Furthermore while the deputies may have been wrong when they stated in the affidavit supporting the search warrant they type of lights they saw in the metal shop and in the garage the error was not material. the defendants argued that there was not probable cause for the search warrant. But the court ruled that the evidence discovered when the deputies were on the driveway provided sufficient evidence to justify the warrant.

What this case shows is a failure of the burden of proof. In a motion to quash a search warrant the defendant has the burden of proof. Here there is no mention of defense witnesses. Such witnesses, for example, could have testified about the presence of a no trespassing sign. If there was a fence around the yards, witnesses could have proved that and the functionality of the gate. On cross examination defense counsel could have pushed the deputies into testifying how close he got to the residence and a defense witness could have testified about the distance.

Of course there could have been strategic reasons for not using defense witnesses. For example they may have been forced to testify about the constant odor of marijuana. But if you are not going to take your best shot at winning the motion, why do it?