Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

United States v. Dunn

Supreme Court of the United States · 1987 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentCurtilageOpen Fieldscurtilageopen fieldsFourth Amendmentbarn

Facts

DEA agents tracked chemicals and equipment used to manufacture controlled substances to Dunn's ranch. Dunn's house was enclosed by a fence, and a large barn sat about 60 yards from the house and 50 yards from the fence surrounding the house; the barn itself had a fenced front with locked waist-high gates and netting above them. Officers crossed perimeter and interior ranch fences without a warrant, approached the barn, smelled strong phenylacetic acid, heard a motor running, and from outside the locked gate shined a flashlight through the netting and observed what appeared to be a drug laboratory. They did not enter the barn, later obtained a warrant, and then seized evidence from the ranch.

Issue

Whether the barn and the area immediately surrounding it were within the curtilage of Dunn's home and therefore protected as part of the home under the Fourth Amendment. Also, whether officers violated the Fourth Amendment by standing in open fields outside the curtilage and looking into the barn with a flashlight from that vantage point.

Rule

Curtilage questions are resolved by reference to four factors: (1) the proximity of the area to the home, (2) whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, (3) the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and (4) the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by passersby. These factors are analytical tools bearing on the central question whether the area is so intimately tied to the home itself that it should be placed under the home's umbrella of Fourth Amendment protection. Areas outside the curtilage are open fields, and officers may lawfully cross ordinary ranch-style fences, stand in open fields, and observe into a structure's open front; use of a flashlight from that lawful vantage point does not itself make the observation an unreasonable search.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In rural Oklahoma, deputies investigating stolen veterinary drugs walk across a barbed-wire pasture fence onto Nina Torres's 120-acre property. Her house is surrounded by a picket fence, and a detached tool shed sits about 65 yards from the house and 40 yards beyond that residential fence. The shed is used to store tractor parts and fertilizer.

If Nina moves to suppress evidence on the ground that the shed area was within the home's curtilage, which result is most likely?

Explanation. Curtilage is assessed with reference to four factors: proximity to the home, inclusion within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses, and steps taken to shield the area from observation. These are tools aimed at the central question whether the area is so intimately tied to the home itself that it falls under the home's Fourth Amendment umbrella. Here, the shed is relatively far from the house, outside the fence enclosing the residence, and used for farm-related storage rather than intimate domestic activity. Under the majority's reasoning, that points away from curtilage.