Summary
The First Circuit reversed the district court's suppression of evidence from a warrantless pole camera that recorded the front of a residence for eight months, holding that under binding circuit precedent (United States v. Bucci) and Supreme Court case law (Katz, Ciraolo, Kyllo), a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in areas knowingly exposed to public view, even when surveilled continuously by a video camera. The court ruled that Carpenter v. United States does not undermine this precedent because it was a narrow decision about cell-site location information that explicitly preserved conventional surveillance techniques such as security cameras. The district court violated the doctrine of stare decisis by departing from controlling precedent, and the case was remanded with instructions to deny the suppression motions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred in suppressing pole camera evidence by violating the doctrine of stare decisis, specifically whether Bucci remains controlling after Carpenter.
Holdings
- The district court violated the doctrine of stare decisis by failing to follow Bucci, which held that warrantless pole camera surveillance of the front of a home is not a search. Carpenter did not overrule Bucci or the Supreme Court precedents on which it relied.
Key quotations
“Under the doctrine of stare decisis, all lower federal courts must follow the commands of the Supreme Court, and only the Supreme Court may reverse its prior precedent.” (3)
“Carpenter was explicit: (1) its opinion was a 'narrow' one, (2) it does not 'call into question conventional surveillance techniques and tools,' and (3) such conventional technologies include 'security cameras.'” (3)
“The district court erred by violating the doctrine of stare decisis.” (3)
Factual background
ATF investigated Nia Moore-Bush for unlicensed firearm sales. A cooperating witness purchased guns at the home of Daphne Moore. ATF installed a pole camera on a utility pole across the street, operating 24/7 for eight months, capturing the front yard, driveway, and part of the street. The camera could zoom, pan, and tilt live but could not see inside. The government used the footage in wiretap applications. Defendants moved to suppress, arguing warrantless pole camera surveillance violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted suppression, relying on Carpenter v. United States.
Procedural history
The district court suppressed pole camera evidence, holding that Carpenter v. United States freed it from Bucci and that the warrantless pole camera surveillance violated the Fourth Amendment. The government appealed, arguing that Bucci remains controlling and that the district court violated stare decisis.
Remand instructions
with instruction to deny the motions to suppress