10-3033 U.S. v. Curlin

Listen to this article

Search and Seizure
Reasonable expectation of privacy

A tenant has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his residence once a writ of restitution is issued.

“The Fourth Amendment explicitly protects the house and entry by officers into a home is generally considered a search. But see Kyllo, 533 U.S. at 33 (noting that ‘a Fourth Amendment search does not occur—even when the explicitly protected location of a house is concerned—unless “the individual manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the object of the challenged search,” and “society [is] willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable”’) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). But there is a key distinction in this case—Curlin had no lawful right to be in the residence he was occupying on December 2, 2008. Curlin had been evicted over two weeks earlier following an action in Indiana court, and had been given notice of his eviction when officers twice left copies of the eviction order at the residence. Like a ‘burglar plying his trade in a summer cabin during the off season,’ Curlin’s presence was ‘wrongful,’ and consequently any subjective expectation of privacy he may have had is not ‘one that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable.”’ Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143-44, n.12 (1978) (citations omitted). Because Curlin had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the residence,
no Fourth Amendment search occurred.”

Affirmed.

10-3033 U.S. v. Curlin

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Barker, J., Flaum, J.

Full Text