People v. Lieng, 190 Cal. App. 4th 1213

Richard Lieng and Tony Lieng pleaded no contest to one felony cultivation of marijuana and one felony possession for sale, respectively, after consolidated proceedings.
They challenged a Willits, California property search with motions to suppress and to traverse the warrant under Penal Code section 1538.5, which the trial court denied.
Before trial, the parties entered negotiated pleas; Richard received three years’ formal probation plus 60 days in county jail, similarly for Tony.
The appellate court consolidated the appeals for disposition; key issue concerned suppression based on Fourth Amendment protections and warrant adequacy.
Sergeant Bruce Smith testified at the suppression hearing about observations from March 27 and April 3, 2008, from the property driveway, including odor and sounds of growing marijuana and HID lighting.
The warrant application relied on Smith’s observations and prior information; the trial court found no curtilage violation and supported probable cause for the warrant following a Franks analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did surveillance from the Lieng driveway invade the curtilage?	Lieng contends observations from the driveway breached curtilage protections.	Lieng asserts observations from the driveway fall outside the curtilage and are permissible.	No curtilage violation; observations from the driveway were outside curtilage.
Does night-vision goggles use constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment?	Lieng argues goggles amplified view into protected space, constituting a search.	Smith’s night vision goggles do not intrude beyond public view and are permissible.	Use of night vision goggles did not constitute a search.
Was there probable cause for the search warrant based on the affidavit and informant information?	Lieng contends the warrant affidavit lacked probable cause and improperly relied on an informant.	People maintain the totality of the circumstances supported probable cause and informant background was ancillary.	Probable cause supported the warrant; no material misrepresentation established.
Did the traverse/Franks challenge fail due to reckless disregard or false statements?	Lieng argues false or reckless statements invalidated the Franks pivot.	People contend statements about HID lights were reasonable expert observations.	Franks challenge failed; no showing of knowing falsity or reckless disregard.

People v. Hoyos, 41 Cal.4th 872 (Cal. 2007) (defers to trial court on factual findings but exercises independent judgment on Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
People v. Ayala, 23 Cal.4th 225 (Cal. 2000) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings and credibility)
People v. James, 19 Cal.3d 99 (Cal. 1977) (evidence appraisal and credibility as part of suppression analysis)
United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1987) (Dunn factors for curtilage analysis)
Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (U.S. 1984) (outside curtilage open fields doctrine)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (U.S. 2001) (thermal imaging as a search; night vision distinguished)
U.S. v. Dellas, 355 F.Supp.2d 1095 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (surveillance on private dirt road outside curtilage)
People v. Edelbacher, 47 Cal.3d 983 (Cal. 1989) (driveway observations not a Fourth Amendment violation)
U.S. v. Vela, 486 F.Supp.2d 587 (W.D. Tex. 2005) (night vision goggles; public view; not a search)
Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (U.S. 1983) (scope of Fourth Amendment searches and observations)