United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987)

Ronald Dunn owned nearly 200 acres of ranch property. Situated one-half mile off the public road, the ranch consisted of a home with a nearby greenhouse, two barns approximately 50 yards from the house, and a fence surrounding the property. The ranch had a series of interior fences as well. One encircled the home and greenhouse. A wooden fence surrounded the larger of the two barns, and another fence barred entry into the barn proper; both of these fences were surrounded by barbed wire. In 1980 the Drug Enforcement Administration learned that Robert Carpenter had purchased certain equipment and chemicals used in the manufacture of amphetamines, namely an electric hot stirrer plate and two drums of chemicals. DEA agents placed tracking devices on the stirrer and the drums and tracked two of them to the ranch house.
On November 5, 1980, law enforcement officials made a warrantless entry onto the ranch, drawn by their data, the smell of chemicals, and the sound of a motor running. Crossing several fences, the officers observed—without entering the barn— what they believed to be a drug laboratory. The following morning the officers obtained a search warrant, and it was executed two days later. The officers seized the equipment, chemicals, and drugs in the house and arrested Dunn.
The question before the Supreme Court was whether the barn fell within the curtilage of the house, and thus whether Dunn had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the barn and its contents. The Supreme Court held that the barn was not within the curtilage of the home, as it did not meet a four-factor test. The first of these factors to be considered was the proximity of the area to the home. In this case, the barn was nearly 50 yards away from the residence. In the eyes of the Court, this distance was sufficient to find that the barn was too far away from the residence. The second factor was whether the area was within an enclosure surrounding the home. On Dunn’s ranch, he had constructed several fences. However, the same fence did not encompass the home and the barns. The third factor considered was the nature and use of the area. The Court pointed out that the officers possessed independent and objective data indicating that the barn was not being used as part of the home. Therefore, the barn could not be placed under the same blanket of protection as the home, as it was being used for an independent purpose. The fourth factor considered was the steps taken by Dunn to protect the area from observation by others. The Court reasoned that although there were several fences, they were much like those used to corral livestock and not intended to block observation. Therefore, because the barn did not satisfy any of the four factors, it was not found to be within the curtilage of the home.
In the alternative, Dunn attempted to argue that the barn was essential to his business, and therefore he possessed a privacy interest in it. The Court was quick to point out that the officers never entered the barn. Rather, they conducted their observations over the ranch-style fences. As the Court has previously held, law enforcement may conduct observations from the surrounding open fields, and fences of this type do not create a constitutionally protected privacy interest. The plain view observation of an area is not unconstitutional, and even shining a flashlight into a darkened area does not violate any Fourth Amendment protected interest.
Therefore, the Court reversed its prior decisions and held that the barn was not within the protected curtilage of the home. All evidence that had been seized was admissible, and Dunn’s conviction was upheld.