While the police did, in fact, violate defendant\u2019s Fourth Amendment rights by looking through a crack in the blinds through a window, the police would have obtained a search warrant anyway under inevitable discovery. United States v. Christy, 810 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (D. N.M. 2011), Motion granted by, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127233 (D.N.M., Sept. 8, 2011):<\/p>\n
Although the deputies\u2019 presence in the area from which Littlefield looked into Christy\u2019s residence window did not violate the Fourth Amendment, Littlefield\u2019s act of peering into a small crack in the blinds constituted a search. The crack in the blinds was a little longer than half the length of the blinds, and the height of the crack was approximately an inch or less. \u201cThe touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis is whether a person has a \u2018constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy.\u2019\u201d California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 211 (1986) (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 360 (1967)(Harlan, J., concurring)). Courts generally \u201cdetermine whether a person has a constitutionally protected expectation of privacy by making two inquiries: first has the person exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy in the place or thing searched? Second, is the person\u2019s expectation of privacy one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable?\u201d United States v. Hatfield, 333 F.3d at 1195. The \u201cprototypical … area of protected privacy\u201d is the interior of a residence. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 57, 35 (2001).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading