149 F.4th 733
D.C. Cir.2025Background
- On January 20, 2020, police responded to gunshots near a rowhouse in Washington, D.C., located in a public-housing complex; they found shell casings and later, with a search warrant, recovered drugs, digital scales, and a firearm from the residence.
- Surveillance footage from a nearby pole-mounted ATF camera, recently installed for a separate investigation, captured a man (later identified as Green) firing a gun from the rowhouse and then entering.
- Green attempted to flee when police entered, but was arrested; personal and financial documents linking Green to the residence were found throughout the home.
- Inside, police located large quantities of narcotics (oxycodone, hydromorphone, crack cocaine), packaging materials, digital scales, and a loaded firearm with a conversion device.
- Green’s cellphone contained a photo of white powder on a scale and a text message about selling marijuana; both were admitted as evidence at trial.
- Green was convicted by a jury on drug and firearm offenses and appealed, raising Fourth Amendment, sufficiency of the evidence, and evidentiary challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pole-camera surveillance (Fourth Amendment) | Use of pole camera was a warrantless search violating privacy | Camera captured only what was in plain public view | Not a search under Fourth Amendment; no reasonable expectation |
| Constructive possession of drugs | Insufficient evidence connected Green to the drugs | Evidence showed Green as sole occupant and linked to drugs | Sufficient evidence for constructive possession |
| Admission of photo of powder/scale (Ex. 101) | Irrelevant, prejudicial, not tied to drugs in this case | Relevant to intent/identity; admitted for permissible purpose | Admission proper; relevance established, probative value outweighed prejudice |
| Admission of marijuana text (Ex. 110) | Impermissible character evidence, unfair prejudice | Shows intent to distribute, not mere propensity | Admission upheld; relevance to intent minimal but not outweighed by prejudice; any error harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (publicly exposed conduct is not protected under Fourth Amendment)
- California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (plain view from lawful vantage point not a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (GPS tracking as a Fourth Amendment search; mosaic theory roots)
- Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (extended location tracking via cell data is a search; mosaic theory)
- United States v. Crowder, 141 F.3d 1202 (en banc) (admitting prior drug distribution evidence to show intent)
- United States v. Douglas, 482 F.3d 591 (admission of prior similar drug transactions to show knowledge or intent)
- United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (mosaic theory and expectations of privacy over time)