United States v. Gregory, 3:23-cr-00015

Law enforcement investigating cocaine and methamphetamine trafficking in Central Virginia interviewed sources alleging Norman Eugene Goins, Jr. transported drugs using a clothing business owned by his girlfriend, Laqueshia Burgess.
"Tha Bully," the business in question, was based at 340 Greenbrier Drive, Charlottesville, VA; authorities found a box addressed to Burgess in a public dumpster that tested positive for drug residue.
Without a warrant, law enforcement installed two pole cameras with property owners’ permission, monitoring the public parking lot and exterior of the business from May to September 2023.
Cameras occasionally recorded Goins’s appearances at the location (about once a week); footage was limited to the public areas outside the business.
Goins moved to suppress evidence from these cameras, arguing the warrantless surveillance violated the Fourth Amendment.

Issue	Goins's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether warrantless pole camera surveillance constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment	Surveillance of exterior and “comings and goings” violated Goins’s reasonable expectation of privacy, particularly via continuous, aggregated video	No reasonable expectation of privacy in public-facing, accessible areas; law enforcement recorded only what was visible to the public	Use of pole cameras aimed at the public exterior is not a "search" under the Fourth Amendment
Applicability of Carpenter v. United States to pole camera surveillance	Cited Carpenter, arguing aggregate location tracking by cameras creates privacy concern	Carpenter is distinguishable; fixed cameras captured only sporadic, visible events, not comprehensive tracking	Carpenter does not apply; cameras did not create comprehensive tracking
Whether law enforcement trespassed in installing cameras	Installation without warrant was an unlawful trespass	Cameras were placed with express permission from property owners	No unlawful trespass; argument lacked merit
Application of the good faith exception to exclusionary rule	Evidence should be excluded if the surveillance is ruled unlawful	Officers followed binding precedent permitting surveillance of public spaces without a warrant	Good faith exception would apply even if surveillance were unlawful

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (exposure to public view is not protected by the Fourth Amendment)
California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (no reasonable expectation of privacy for property visible from public airspace)
Dow Chem. Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (aerial surveillance of industrial plant not an unconstitutional search)
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (GPS tracking device on vehicle constitutes a Fourth Amendment search)
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (warrant generally required for historical cell-site location information)
United States v. Vankesteren, 553 F.3d 286 (pole camera on open fields did not violate any reasonable expectation of privacy)
United States v. Castellanos, 716 F.3d 828 (defendant must show legitimate expectation of privacy in area searched)
United States v. Dickerson, 655 F.2d 559 (burden on defendant to establish Fourth Amendment violation in suppression motion)