United States v. Johnson

MEMORANDUM **

Michael Johnson appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We hold that Johnson’s shed was not so intimately tied to his home as to be protected by the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, we affirm the district court.

Because the parties are aware of the facts, we do not recite them here. Under United States v. Dunn:

We use these four factors as a tool to consider “whether the area in question is so intimately tied to the home itself that it should be placed under the home’s ‘umbrella’ of Fourth Amendment protection.”

Johnson’s shed was 40-50 yards from his residence, behind a fenced-in dog kennel, and down an unmanicured slope. The shed’s proximity from Johnson’s home weighs against a finding that the shed is within his curtilage. 4 Additionally, Johnson had taken affirmative steps toward enclosing over 90% of his house, which did not include the shed. Although one could walk from the house to the shed without crossing through a fence, one must walk *289 around the fenced-in dog kennel and down a lull to do so. Furthermore, the only thing preventing the house from being fenced in all the way was where it connected with the driveway. Each of…