Essay on United States V. Curlin

674 Words Dec 9th, 2012 3 Pages
Title
UNITED STATES V. CURLIN
Citation
U.S. App. LEXIS 8426 (7th Cir. 2011 Unpub.) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, V. Marcus CURLIN, Appellant No. 10-3033

History
Marcus CURLIN was ordered by the Small Claims Court judge to vacate the property due to failure to pay rent. At the time of the eviction the deputies observed firearms in the house and Curlin was charged with possession of firearms due to earlier felony convictions which bar him from owning firearms. The defendant attempted to suppress the evidence on the plain-view doctrine and the violation of privacy, under the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, as the deputies entered his premises without a search warrant. The Seventh Circuit Court affirmed the decision of
…show more content…
At the execution of writ constable Walden knocked at the door and announced the purpose of his visit. When Curlin answered the door, he was secured and then a safety sweep was conducted, during which the deputies recovered a 12-guage shotgun, a SKS rifle on the shelf of the master bedroom and because they already knew that Curlin was a convicted felon they procedded with reading him his miranda rights and arresting him. Curlin then informed the deputies of a 38 revolver, which the police seized.
Curlin was indicted on federal weapons violations and he filed motion to suppress.

Opinion
The Court held that Curlin had no right to be in the home, as the trial judge had ordered for his eviction by November 17th 2008. Additionally Curlin was twice given notice of eviction when the deputies left copies of the order at his residence. The date of incident is December 2nd 2008, which is two weeks after he was supposed to have left. Accordingly, since Curlin had no right to be in the home therefore he did not possess a reasonable or legitimate expectation of privacy in the residence, accordingly the Fourth Amendment protection cannot be extended to Curlin.
The Court also considered the alleged warrantless seizure of Curlin firearms under the plain view doctrine and held that Curlin had no Fourth Amendment protection where such a defense

Related Documents