Summary
This Third Circuit Court of Appeals opinion addresses whether a police officer's warrantless walk up a defendant's driveway constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The court holds that the middle of the driveway was not protected curtilage under the Dunn factors and applies de novo review to curtilage determinations following Ornelas v. United States. Additionally, the court rejects the defendant's Second Amendment challenge to his conviction as a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), affirming the district court's judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Third Circuit should review the ultimate determination that an area is within a home's curtilage de novo rather than for clear error.
- Whether the portion of Moses's driveway where the officer approached and searched his vehicle was within the curtilage of his home, requiring a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement.
- Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face or as applied to Moses under the Second Amendment.
Holdings
- The ultimate legal determination whether an area is within the curtilage of a home is reviewed de novo, while the district court's underlying factual findings are reviewed for clear error.
- The portion of Moses's driveway where the officer approached the vehicle was not within the home's curtilage; therefore, the officer did not need a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement merely to walk to the vehicle.
- Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Moses, a felon on parole or probation, and his facial challenge necessarily fails because the statute is valid in at least some applications.
Key quotations
“We join our sister circuits in holding that de novo review applies.” (at 7)
“As a felon on parole, Moses could be prosecuted for having the gun.” (at 15)
Factual background
Officer Dustin Hess smelled burnt marijuana coming from Moses's vehicle and observed that its windows were illegally tinted. Hess followed Moses to his home, walked partway up Moses's driveway, approached the vehicle, and searched it after Moses declined consent; the search revealed a loaded, stolen pistol. Moses had prior felony convictions and was on parole or probation, making him subject to federal firearms restrictions.
Procedural history
A police officer followed Moses after smelling burnt marijuana and observing excessively tinted windows, then approached Moses's vehicle after it stopped in his driveway and searched the vehicle, finding a loaded stolen pistol. The District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied Moses's motion to dismiss the indictment and motion to suppress. Moses entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed. The Third Circuit affirmed in a precedential opinion; Judge Ambro dissented from the Fourth Amendment ruling but agreed that the Second Amendment challenges failed.