955 F.3d 563
6th Cir.2020Background:
- Grand Rapids police conducted a 23‑day surveillance of an apartment complex parking lot using a van with cameras and a pole‑mounted camera on a public street; officers observed suspected drug transactions involving May‑Shaw and his BMW parked in a covered carport.
- A narcotics detection dog alerted to the BMW while it was parked under the carport; officers used the surveillance footage plus the dog alert to obtain a search warrant for May‑Shaw’s apartment and three vehicles.
- Searches recovered large quantities of cocaine, fentanyl, cash, a firearm, and drug paraphernalia; May‑Shaw was indicted on drug and related charges and moved to suppress the evidence.
- May‑Shaw argued (1) the long‑term pole‑camera surveillance of the carport was a Fourth Amendment search and (2) the dog sniff of the car in the carport was an unconstitutional warrantless search because the carport was within the apartment’s curtilage.
- The district court denied suppression; May‑Shaw entered a conditional guilty plea preserving the right to appeal the denial; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 23‑day pole‑camera surveillance of the carport was a Fourth Amendment search | Long‑term video monitoring of curtilage is constitutionally problematic and exceeded a reasonable expectation of privacy | Camera captured only what was publicly visible from Norman Drive; no physical intrusion; surveillance comparable to public observation | Not a search: surveillance viewed what was publicly observable; no reasonable expectation of privacy violated |
| Whether a K‑9 sniff of the BMW parked under the carport was a search because the carport was within the home’s curtilage | The carport was partially enclosed and closely linked to domestic life, so it is curtilage and a dog sniff there is a warrantless search under Jardines | The carport was communal/visible to the public, not encompassed by the home’s curtilage; defendant took no measures to exclude observers | Not within curtilage: carport not intimately tied to the home; dog sniff was not a Fourth Amendment search |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (warrantless drug‑dog sniff of home’s curtilage is a search)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (Fourth Amendment protects reasonable expectations of privacy)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (GPS/long‑term tracking and concurring views on surveillance concerns)
- California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) (aerial observation of a fenced yard from public airspace was not a search)
- Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 1663 (2018) (vehicle on portion of driveway within an enclosure can be within curtilage)
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (four‑factor test for curtilage: proximity, enclosure, use, steps to exclude)
- United States v. Houston, 813 F.3d 282 (6th Cir. 2016) (pole‑mounted long‑term video of porch did not violate Fourth Amendment when view was public)
- United States v. Powell, 847 F.3d 760 (6th Cir. 2017) (up to 90‑day pole‑camera surveillance not a search where view was public)
- United States v. Coleman, 923 F.3d 450 (6th Cir. 2019) (vehicle in communal condo driveway not within curtilage)
- United States v. Galaviz, 645 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2011) (driveway adjacent to house and visible from sidewalk not curtilage)
- United States v. Perez, 440 F.3d 363 (6th Cir. 2006) (drug‑dog sniff of car in public parking lot not a search)
- United States v. Gooch, 499 F.3d 596 (6th Cir. 2007) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in openly accessible parking lot)
- Daughenbaugh v. City of Tiffin, 150 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 1998) (detached garage within curtilage where natural boundaries and concealment existed)