Background
Drug enforcement agents investigated Eric Kendrick for narcotics distribution. After a traffic stop revealed drugs and cash, agents installed a stationary camera on a utility pole across the street from Kendrick’s auto-repair shop. The camera recorded activities within the property, which was surrounded by a wooden fence with a thirty-foot gap. The footage led to a search warrant, the seizure of fifty-five kilograms of cocaine, and Kendrick’s indictment for conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and possession of a firearm. Kendrick moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the pole camera violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but the district court denied the motion. Kendrick pleaded guilty while preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling.
The court’s reasoning
The Seventh Circuit applied the privacy-based approach from Katz v. United States, focusing primarily on whether society is willing to recognize an expectation of privacy as reasonable. The court found that the fence did not provide a subjective expectation of privacy because the thirty-foot gap allowed passersby to see into the property. The court noted that the pole camera used common technology and was located where officers were lawfully entitled to be. Citing United States v. House and California v. Ciraolo, the court held that observations from a public vantage point that render activities clearly visible do not constitute a search. The court further emphasized that commercial properties enjoy a reduced expectation of privacy compared to residences.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that fences with significant openings do not shield commercial activities from warrantless surveillance by cameras in public locations. It clarifies that the use of common pole cameras to observe visible activities on commercial property does not violate the Fourth Amendment.