----------
The Death of A Doctrine
February 10, 2006
The Fourth Amendment has always been held to protect citizens from
intrusions by government officials into the most private areas of their
lives, including the home, and the curtilage – the area immediately
surrounding the home into which the intimacies of everyday life extend.
Until now.
In the case of Widgren v. Maple Grove Township, the plaintiffs brought
suit for a violation of Fourth Amendment rights based upon three
warrantless searches of their remote rural property, including a search
that came into physical contact with the exterior of the home, one that
came within a couple feet of the home, and one that ventured just into
the clearing in which the cabin sits. The Defendants were a zoning
administrator, a tax assessor, and the Township that employed them.
The US District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Judge
Richard Enslen, granted summary judgment, holding that no violation of
rights had occurred, and the Plaintiffs appealed. The Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals, with a panel composed of Judges Merritt, Moore, and
Sutton, held that an administrative “inspection” that does not involve
taking any extraordinary action like bending, twisting, or contorting
ones self does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even if done while
illegally trespassing within the curtilage of the home, holding that
these intrusions are not searches within the meaning of the Fourth
Amendment.
Since that differs tremendously from the US Supreme Court’s holdings in
Camara v Municipal Court that intrusions for administrative inspections
are searches within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus
require a warrant, as well as with all other existing case law on the
issue, the Plaintiffs sought a rehearing en banc. To the great amazement
of the many people watching this case, not a single judge from the
entire group of active judges on the Sixth Circuit saw fit to call for a
vote on a rehearing en banc.
The end result is that private property outside the home no longer
receives any protection whatsoever from the warrant requirement of the
Fourth Amendment, at least not in the Sixth Circuit, unless perhaps
there might be some protection if the intruder is a police officer
actively involved in a criminal investigation. This case has already
been relied upon by the US District Court for the Western District of
Michigan, Judge Robert Holmes Bell, to hold that a trespassing police
officer peering in the bedroom windows of a home did not constitute a
search… leading to the obvious conclusion that anything which is either
outside of the home itself, or even visible from the outside is no
longer protected by the Fourth Amendment (even if that requires peering
in windows – a criminal action itself had the peeping tom not been a
police officer).
An appeal to the US Supreme Court is unlikely. The expense would be
significant, and the high court only hears about 1% of the cases
presented to it… and the expense would be incurred whether or not the
Court accepted the case. The Plaintiffs have already endured two lengthy
and expensive court battles over this same basic issue ( fighting
separately the citations received as a result of the warrantless
searches) and these battles have continued for three years. It is
anticipated at this point that the Court’s decision will likely become
final, and be the last action in the case.
It is imperative to the continued survival of the Doctrine of Curtilage,
and those few protections that remain, that there be a sense of public
outrage over this decision that compels state legislators and the
Congress to take steps to define in law the extent of the protections of
the warrant requirement. Absent an act of the Congress, the 6th Circuits
holdings in this case will redefine Fourth Amendment law… and will
virtually eliminate any protections for areas outside the home, and
those inside which can be seen from a window. I would urge everyone, but
particularly those who reside inside the bounds of the Sixth Circuit, to
contact their representatives immediately, and demand that legislative
action be taken to preserve the historical meaning of the warrant
requirement.
Robert Marlett
Freedom's Cry Foundation
www.freedomscry.us
Learn about my new book, "Lines in the Sand" at
http://www.wilderness-cry.com/rmarlett/
Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:19 CST