Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 11-4379
No. 11-4380
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (2:09-cr-00223-1; 2:09-cr-00223-2)
Argued:
SHEDD,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
HAMILTON,
Senior
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Tommy Edward Young, Sr. and Tommy
Edward Young, Jr. (the Youngs) of conspiracy to transport and
sell stolen property and vehicles, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
371,
as
thefts.
well
as
substantive
counts
arising
out
of
specific
In this
consolidated
things,
that
the
appeal,
district
the
Youngs
court
erred
contend,
in
among
denying
other
their
motion
to
regarding
stolen
property,
the
Clay
County
Sheriffs
Office
Upon receiving
the
excavator
near
the
Youngs
property
line.
merit.
2
the
Youngs'
property
and
observed
four
other
equipment
observation and the fact that two trailers had recently been
reported stolen, the Sheriffs Office obtained a search warrant.
When officers later executed the warrant, they
seized several
items,
of
including
four
trailers,
at
least
one
which
they
that
rights.
they
the
The
did
two
before
the
searches
Fourth
district
violated
Amendment
court,
their
protects
Fourth
the
Youngs
Amendment
individuals
from
of
privacy.
Although
the
Fourth
Amendment
papers,
fields.
Oliver
(1984)(internal
Therefore,
and
an
effects,
v.
is
United
citations
individual
States,
and
has
not
no
4
extended
466
to
U.S.
the
open
170,
176
citation
marks
omitted).
legitimate
expectation
that
open
fields
will
remain
government officers.
free
from
warrantless
intrusion
by
Id. at 181.
the
court
found
that
the
officers
As to the second
executed
valid
search warrant.
the
doctrine
open
fields
also
justified
the
second
search.
Therefore, the court held that the searches did not violate the
Youngs Fourth Amendment rights and, consequently, denied the
Youngs motions to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to the
searches.
Courts consider four factors when deciding whether a
search occurred within the curtilage or open fields:
proximity
of
the
area
enclosure
connecting
to
the
the
home,
property
to
(2)
the
the
(1) the
presence
home,
(3)
of
how
an
the
F.3d 286, 289 (4th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Dunn, 480
U.S. 294, 301 (1987)).
Applying these four factors, we find that the miniexcavator
fields.
the
recovered
in
the
first
search
was
located
in
open
Youngs
residence;
indeed,
5
the
Youngs
could
not
even
the
individualized
cause.
search
warrant
information
to
contained
support
finding
sufficient,
of
probable
trailers
curtilage.
were
found
was
not
within
the
Youngs
and
the
Youngs
of
the
land
had
or
taken
the
no
trailers
steps
to
sitting
prevent
on
it.
AFFIRMED