Curtilage and Expectation of Privacy

---

Ronald Janis was convicted of possession of a stolen motor vehicle and possession of a vehicle having the identification number removed. Janis owns and operates a plumbing business. Immediately behind his business is a gravel area where the stolen vehicle was located. This gravel area can only be reached through a private driveway located on residential property directly behind the gravel area. Janis owns this residential property and leases it to a tenant. He testified the tenants do not have permission to use the gravel area. He also testified that teenagers sometimes "park" in the gravel area. A fence and a pipe rack and semi-trailer truck seperate the gravel area from the areas behind the stores on either side of Janis's plumbing business. He testified that one store had recieved deliveries through the gravel area behind the stores and that customers of the other business could not reach it through the gravel area. An officer entered the gravel area behind the plumbing business without a warrant after receiving an anonymous tip about stolen vehicles. He observed two trucks. The officer returned to the station and determined that the VIN on one of the trucks was not correct for that type of vehicle. He returned to the gravel area and confirmed this before contacting the defendant. Three officers returned to the gravel area, discovered that the rivets on the VIN plate attached to the door post did not appear to be the original rivets, and towed the truck to the city poun and searched it.

• Was the gravel area behind the defendant's plumbing business afforded the traditional protection of curtilage of a home?

• Did the defendant have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the gravel area?

• Should the evidence gathered in the gravel area be suppressed?

  
  

See Illinois v. Janis, 139 Ill.2d 300, 565 N.E.2d 633, 152 Ill.Dec. 100.

Answer
Curtilage: land and ancillary buildings associated with a dwelling (front/backyard, garage, etc).  However, no recognized reasonable expectation of privacy as to things that can be seen from public property or on "open fields" outside of curtilage.

The Supreme Court, Ward, J., held that: (1) protection traditionally afforded to curtilage of home under Fourth Amendment did not apply to outdoor gravel area immediately behind defendant's plumbing business, but (2) evidence at suppression hearing was sufficient to establish that defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in gravel area.