United States v. Alexander
888 F.3d 628
2d Cir.2018Background
- Robert Alexander lived in a narrow Staten Island house with an 84-foot driveway running along the side to a shed in the backyard; fencing existed on three sides but not along the street.
- At ~3:00–3:30 a.m., plainclothes officers encountered Alexander in his front yard after detaining occupants of a parked car for suspected drugs.
- Alexander walked down the driveway toward the backyard, picked up a bag by the house, returned without it, and said he was going to put away an open bottle of alcohol.
- Officer Barreiro, without a warrant or probable cause, followed down the driveway, found the bottle near the back door, then entered the backyard and discovered a bag by a chair in front of the shed containing two guns.
- The district court suppressed the bottle (finding it within the curtilage) but denied suppression of the guns; Alexander was convicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm and appealed.
- The Second Circuit vacated the conviction, holding the area in front of the shed was within the home’s curtilage and the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment; remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the area where guns were found is curtilage protected by the Fourth Amendment | Alexander: area abuts house, used for home activities, within fenced property — therefore curtilage; search unlawful without warrant/probable cause | Government: portion of driveway/backyard visible and accessible from street; driveways unenclosed and routinely accessible are not curtilage (open fields) | Area in front of the shed is curtilage; guns suppressed; warrantless search unconstitutional |
| Proper weight of Dunn curtilage factors post-Jardines | Alexander: proximity and use favor curtilage despite limited public visibility | Government: visibility/accessibility and lack of enclosing fence weigh against curtilage | Dunn factors must be applied flexibly; Jardines limits the significance of visibility/access as dispositive |
| Relevance of officer’s lack of probable cause or reasonable suspicion to justify entry | Alexander: no probable cause or exigency; no claim that implied license justified nighttime search | Government: argues open-field characterization would permit warrantless inspection regardless of suspicion | Because area was curtilage, absence of probable cause/exigency makes the intrusion unconstitutional |
| Applicability of Second Circuit precedents treating driveways as non-curtilage | Government: cites pre-Jardines cases holding driveways unenclosed and visible are not curtilage | Alexander: those precedents are distinguishable and undermined by Jardines | Pre-Jardines dicta do not control; Jardines and Dunn analysis lead to curtilage finding here |
Key Cases Cited
- Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (recognizing core Fourth Amendment protection of the home)
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (establishing four-factor curtilage test)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (porch as paradigmatic curtilage; limits significance of public visibility)
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (definition of curtilage as area adjacent to the home to which home life extends)
- United States v. Reilly, 76 F.3d 1271 (Second Circuit curtilage analysis considering use and proximity)
- Harris v. O’Hare, 770 F.3d 224 (Second Circuit: fenced-in side/backyard abutting house constitutes curtilage)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (standard of review for mixed fact-law questions in suppression rulings)
- United States v. Hayes, 551 F.3d 138 (Second Circuit discussion of curtilage and transient crossings)