State v. Gaters
2017 SD 60
| S.D. | 2017Background
- Police used an unwarranted pole camera across the street to surveil Joseph Jones’s trailer for weeks and conducted garbage searches, finding evidence suggesting drug activity.
- Detective Rogers obtained a search warrant for Jones’s home and installed GPS on vehicles; on March 19, officers observed Jones and Walter Gaters arrive and entered the home under a warrant.
- Inside Jones’s trailer officers found ~3 pounds of marijuana and $27,000; officers also searched Gaters’s van parked outside and found marijuana.
- Gaters was arrested and moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the pole-camera surveillance and the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
- The circuit court found Gaters lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in Jones’s home (he was “simply permitted” on the premises) and, alternatively, that the search was lawful; Gaters appealed.
- The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed factual findings for clear error and legal questions de novo and affirmed the denial of suppression because Gaters failed to show a protectable expectation of privacy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gaters had standing / a reasonable expectation of privacy to challenge the March 19 search of Jones’s home | State: Gaters was merely permitted on the premises and had no protectable privacy interest | Gaters: as a close, frequent social guest (analogized to Tullous/overnight guest) he had a legitimate expectation of privacy | Court: Gaters failed to prove ownership, control, access (e.g., key, overnight stays); he was closer to a permitted guest and lacked a protectable interest, so no standing to suppress |
| Whether prior pole-camera surveillance tainted the search such that Gaters’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated | State: surveillance did not establish Gaters’s privacy interest; search lawful | Gaters: pole-camera surveillance and garbage searches produced evidence used to obtain warrants, violating privacy | Court: Declined to reach this issue because Gaters lacked a protectable interest; suppression denial affirmed on standing ground |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 362 U.S. 257 (1960) (standing/legitimacy of challenging a search historically recognized anyone legitimately on premises could challenge)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (standing under Fourth Amendment requires a personal legitimate expectation of privacy)
- Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990) (overnight guest has reasonable expectation of privacy in host’s home)
- Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998) (short-term/commercial guests may lack the expectation of privacy; social-guest status analyzed case-by-case)
- United States v. Gomez, 16 F.3d 254 (8th Cir. 1994) (factors bearing on guest’s privacy interest: ownership, possession, control, access)