United States v. Cantu
684 F. App'x 703
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Lea County Drug Task Force and the FBI surveilled a suspected drug ring in Hobbs, NM; agents targeted Rolando Cantu and installed a utility-pole camera ~70 yards from the adjacent residences of Rolando and Ruben Cantu.
- Camera was mounted on a pole by the utility company, provided a continuous live feed (no audio), could pan/zoom, and allow still-photo capture; it could not see inside the houses.
- During surveillance, agents observed a man in the common area between the properties carrying what appeared to be an assault rifle; stills showed the weapon was visible to passersby.
- Agents identified the man as Ruben Cantu, checked his felony record, obtained a search warrant, and seized an AR-15 and >100 rounds.
- Cantu moved to suppress the pole-camera evidence as a warrantless search; the district court denied the motion, Cantu pleaded guilty reserving appeal, and he appealed the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Cantu's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless pole-camera surveillance violated the Fourth Amendment | The camera was a warrantless intrusion; Cantu unknowingly entered the camera’s view (argues curtilage/protected area and reliance on Jardines) | Surveillance captured only what was visible to the public/passerby and did not record inside the home; no physical trespass occurred | Court affirmed: no Fourth Amendment violation under reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test; warrant not required |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jackson, 213 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir.) (use of pole-top cameras that view only what a passerby could see does not violate the Fourth Amendment)
- California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) (observation of the home’s exterior from public vantage points not a search)
- Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986) (use of visual surveillance of activities exposed to public view is not a search)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (Fourth Amendment protects people’s reasonable expectations of privacy)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (Fourth Amendment search can be shown by either trespassory test or reasonable-expectation test)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (physical intrusion onto curtilage to gather evidence is a search)
- United States v. Mesa-Rincon, 911 F.2d 1433 (10th Cir.) (principles governing intrusive indoor video surveillance; distinguished here because surveillance was of publicly exposed areas)