Don's house is about 200 yards from mainland and is enclosed by a 12 foot fence on all sides but the water side. The officers watch from across the street via a neighbor's house (with the owner's consent) and using binoculars. Other officers watch with binoculars from boats on the water 500 yards away from the house. After watching for two days, the officers see a car that does not belong to Don enter the estate. The officers watch as the passengers get out and try to get in Don's house. After discovering that the doors and windows are locked the passengers go into a tree nearby and retrieve what appears to be a key. The passengers enter the house and begin to bring boxes out to the car.

As the car is leaving, the officers notice that there is a tail light that is out. The officers pull the car and tell the driver and passenger that they think that evidence was being removed from Don's house. The officers ask for consent to search the car. The driver and passenger consent and the officers discover marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia and documents related to the alleged nuisance. When asked, the driver says that the materials came from the house.

The officers use this information to obtain a warrant and search the house. They discover some drugs and a safe. They break into the safe and discover $250,000.

Were the searches justified?
Was the consent valid?
Was the surveillance okay?
Does this seem legitimate and necessary?

Answer
(1) The first search that actually took place under the 4th amendment was the search of the car leaving the residence.
(2) The officers validly stopped the vehicle for having a tail light out.  It is perfectly valid to pull a car over for an infraction as a pretext for performing a custodial arrest and search incident to arrest or requesting a consensual search.
(3) Based on these facts, the consent appears voluntary under the totality of the circumstances, and does not appear to be the product of duress or coercion.  Therefore, the consent was valid.
(4) The surveillance was ok because (a) The officers were in a place they could legally be (b) the police were using a mechanical device in general public use (binoculars) (c) therefore, there was no search/seizure/or invasion of privacy protected under the 4th amendment.