United States v. Dunn

1987-04-20

Headline: Rural barn found outside home’s curtilage; Court reverses appeals court and allows police observations from open fields, making it easier to use visible activity near a house to obtain a warrant.

Holding: The Court held that the barn and its surrounding area were not within the home's curtilage, so officers standing in the open fields could lawfully observe the barn and their observations could support a search warrant.

Real World Impact:

Allows officers to observe outbuildings from open fields and use those observations.
Makes it easier to use visible activity near but outside a house to obtain warrants.
Narrows curtilage protection for distant or unfenced outbuildings near homes.

Topics: rural privacy, police searches, barns and outbuildings, search warrants

Summary

Background

A rancher (Ronald Dunn) and a codefendant were investigated after agents tracked hidden electronic transmitters in chemicals and equipment to Dunn’s 198‑acre ranch. Two barns sat about 50 yards from a fenced area around the house. DEA and local officers crossed perimeter and interior fences, walked under a barn overhang, and, without entering the barn, shone a flashlight through netting and saw what they believed was a drug lab. A magistrate later issued a search warrant; officers executed the warrant and seized chemicals and drugs.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the barn and its nearby yard were within the home’s curtilage (the area immediately surrounding a dwelling). Relying on four factors — distance to the house, whether the barn lay inside the house’s enclosing fence, the barn’s observed use, and steps taken to shield it from view — the Court found the barn about 50–60 yards from the residence, outside the house’s fenced enclosure, showing signs of non‑domestic use, and not protected from observation. The majority concluded the barn lay outside the curtilage, so officers standing in the open fields lawfully observed the barn and their observations could support the magistrate’s warrant.

Real world impact

The decision makes clear that structures some distance from a home and outside the home’s enclosure may not receive curtilage protection. That affects rural property owners and police tactics: officers may rely on observations made while standing in open fields to seek warrants, but the ruling does not excuse unlawful entry or all warrantless searches.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia agreed except he disagreed about the relevance of officers’ perceptions as proof of non‑domestic use. Justice Brennan (joined by Marshall) dissented, arguing barns near a farmhouse commonly qualify as curtilage and that the officers invaded a reasonable privacy expectation.