US v. Tommy Young, Sr.
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:09-cr-00223-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998842999].. [11-4379, 11-4380]
Appeal: 11-4379
Document: 39
Date Filed: 04/30/2012
Page: 1 of 6
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4379
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TOMMY EDWARD YOUNG, SR.,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 11-4380
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TOMMY EDWARD YOUNG, JR.,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (2:09-cr-00223-1; 2:09-cr-00223-2)
Argued:
March 20, 2012
Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.
SHEDD,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
and
April 30, 2012
HAMILTON,
Senior
Appeal: 11-4379
Document: 39
Date Filed: 04/30/2012
Page: 2 of 6
ARGUED: Matthew A. Victor, VICTOR VICTOR & HELGOE LLP,
Charleston,
West
Virginia;
Jane
Moran,
Williamson,
West
Virginia, for Appellants.
Susan M. Robinson, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 11-4379
Document: 39
Date Filed: 04/30/2012
Page: 3 of 6
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Tommy Edward Young, Sr. and Tommy
Edward Young, Jr. (the “Youngs”) of conspiracy to transport and
sell stolen property and vehicles, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
371,
as
thefts.
well
as
substantive
counts
arising
out
of
specific
The district court sentenced Young, Sr. to 132 months
imprisonment and Young, Jr. to 58 months imprisonment.
In this
consolidated
things,
that
the
appeal,
district
the
Youngs
court
erred
contend,
in
among
denying
other
their
motion
to
suppress evidence obtained pursuant to two searches of their
property.
For the reasons below, we affirm. 1
During the course of an investigation into the Youngs
regarding
stolen
property,
the
Clay
County
Sheriff’s
performed two searches of the Youngs’ property.
Office
Upon receiving
a tip from the Youngs’ neighbor, the Sheriff’s Office performed
the first search on March 10, 2006.
After aerial surveillance
confirmed the presence of a mini-excavator, the Sheriff’s Office
recovered
the
excavator
near
the
Youngs’
property
line.
However, no one could confirm whether the excavator was actually
located on the Youngs’ property. 2
1
The Youngs raise six other issues, none of which has
merit.
2
The Youngs do not challenge the constitutionality of the
aerial surveillance.
3
Appeal: 11-4379
Document: 39
Date Filed: 04/30/2012
Page: 4 of 6
The second search occurred two weeks later when the
Sheriff’s Office responded to a tip regarding potential stolen
property located approximately one-quarter mile from the Youngs’
residence.
When driving along a road that was used by people in
addition to the Youngs to investigate the tip, an officer drove
past
the
Youngs'
property
and
observed
four
other
trailers sitting along the side of the road.
equipment
Based upon this
observation and the fact that two trailers had recently been
reported stolen, the Sheriff’s Office obtained a search warrant.
When officers later executed the warrant, they
seized several
items,
of
including
four
trailers,
at
least
one
which
they
conclusively identified as having been stolen.
As
claim
that
rights.
they
the
The
did
two
before
the
searches
Fourth
district
violated
Amendment
court,
their
protects
Fourth
the
Youngs
Amendment
individuals
from
unreasonable searches and seizures when they have a reasonable
expectation
of
privacy.
Although
the
Fourth
Amendment
recognizes that an individual has a reasonable expectation of
privacy in his home and its curtilage, the “special protection
accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their persons,
houses,
papers,
fields.”
Oliver
(1984)(internal
Therefore,
and
“an
effects,
v.
is
United
citations
individual
States,
and
has
not
no
4
extended
466
to
U.S.
the
open
170,
176
citation
marks
omitted).
legitimate
expectation
that
Appeal: 11-4379
open
Document: 39
fields
Date Filed: 04/30/2012
will
remain
government officers.”
free
Page: 5 of 6
from
warrantless
intrusion
by
Id. at 181.
After considering the requisite factors, the district
court found that the first search occurred in open fields and
not within the curtilage of the Youngs’ home.
search,
the
court
found
that
the
officers
As to the second
executed
a
valid
search warrant.
In the alternative, the court concluded that
the
doctrine
open
fields
also
justified
the
second
search.
Therefore, the court held that the searches did not violate the
Youngs’ Fourth Amendment rights and, consequently, denied the
Youngs’ motions to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to the
searches.
Courts consider four factors when deciding whether a
search occurred within the curtilage or open fields:
proximity
of
the
area
enclosure
connecting
to
the
the
home,
property
to
(2)
the
the
(1) the
presence
home,
(3)
of
how
an
the
property is used, and (4) steps taken to prevent observation of
the area by passers-by.
See United States v. Vankesteren, 553
F.3d 286, 289 (4th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Dunn, 480
U.S. 294, 301 (1987)).
Applying these four factors, we find that the miniexcavator
fields.
the
recovered
in
the
first
search
was
located
in
open
The Sheriff’s Office found it at least 500 feet from
Youngs’
residence;
indeed,
5
the
Youngs
could
not
even
Appeal: 11-4379
Document: 39
Date Filed: 04/30/2012
Page: 6 of 6
identify if the mini-excavator was actually located on their
property.
Additionally, the Youngs took no steps to prevent
observation of the area.
As to the second search, we find that the affidavit
supporting
the
individualized
cause.
search
warrant
information
to
contained
support
a
finding
sufficient,
of
probable
Furthermore, the second search was also justified by the
open fields doctrine because the land on which the recovered
equipment
trailers
curtilage.
were
found
was
not
within
the
Youngs’
The land was not immediately next to the Youngs’
residence, there was no enclosure connecting the land to the
residence,
and
observation
the
Youngs
of
the
land
had
or
taken
the
no
trailers
steps
to
sitting
prevent
on
it.
Therefore, we find no reversible error in the district court's
disposition of this issue.
Accordingly, we affirm the denial of
the two motions to suppress.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment and
sentences imposed by the district court.
AFFIRMED
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?