966 F.3d 506
6th Cir.2020Background:
- Investigators conducted three controlled buys linking Raheim Trice to drug transactions; surveillance suggested association with Apartment B5 at 114 Espanola Avenue.
- Officers entered the building through an exterior door that was ajar (no lock, intercom, or doorbell) and installed a motion-activated hidden camera disguised as a smoke detector on the hallway wall opposite the unmarked door to Apartment B5.
- The camera recorded three to four short (2–3 minute) clips of Trice entering and exiting his unit; footage showed no interior of the apartment and did not reveal phone-screen content.
- The video was included in the affidavit supporting a search warrant for Apartment B5; execution of the warrant led to seizure of substantial quantities of controlled substances and drug-distribution paraphernalia.
- Trice moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the hidden camera violated his Fourth Amendment rights; the district court denied suppression, he pleaded guilty to one count reserving this appeal, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether installing a hidden camera in the apartment building hallway and using resulting footage constituted a Fourth Amendment search | Trice: he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the basement hallway/area outside his door; the hidden camera was a significant intrusion (analogous to curtilage surveillance) and enabled retrospective monitoring like in Carpenter | Government: hallway was an unlocked common area where Trice lacked an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy; the camera recorded only what could be observed from that area and merely augmented ordinary surveillance | Court: No Fourth Amendment search. The hallway was not curtilage and Trice lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy; the camera only recorded entry/exit—information obtainable by lawful visual surveillance, so use of the camera was permissible |
| Whether placing the camera in close proximity to the apartment made the area curtilage (warrant requirement) | Trice: proximity to the unit (≈10 feet) and the camera’s closeness to the door support a curtilage finding | Government: other Dunn factors (no enclosure, common use, no steps to protect from observation) weigh against curtilage; area was a common passageway used by tenants | Court: Not curtilage. Although proximity favored Trice, lack of enclosure, open/common use, and landlord control over common areas meant the wall was not part of the home’s curtilage |
| Whether Carpenter or other modern surveillance limits bar this short, motion-triggered camera deployment | Trice: camera produced retrospective location/movement data and he did not assume risk of hidden monitoring; prolonged/retrospective surveillance concerns in Carpenter apply | Government: camera provided only limited, discrete clips (not prolonged, not encyclopedic), and police could have obtained same observations by entering the common hallway or ordinary visual surveillance | Court: Carpenter does not apply. Surveillance was narrow, short-lived, and produced only entry/exit information that was otherwise observable from the common area; not the kind of comprehensive historical record Carpenter protected |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (establishes two-part reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test)
- Florida v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) (observations from a public vantage point do not violate Fourth Amendment)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (curtilage is part of the home and receives heightened protection)
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (limited electronic tracking that duplicates public visual surveillance does not violate Fourth Amendment)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (long-term, detailed location records can implicate a reasonable expectation of privacy)
- United States v. Houston, 813 F.3d 282 (6th Cir. 2016) (upholding pole-mounted camera because it captured what was visible from public roads)
- United States v. Dillard, 438 F.3d 675 (6th Cir. 2006) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in unlocked, publicly accessible common hallway)
- United States v. May-Shaw, 955 F.3d 563 (6th Cir. 2020) (upholding surveillance technology that observes areas accessible from public vantage points)
- United States v. Powell, 847 F.3d 760 (6th Cir. 2017) (upholding pole camera surveillance of an open driveway)