United States v. Hall, 47 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 1995)

Review United States v. Hall, 47 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 1995). In United States v. Hall, 47 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 1995), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals discussed the difference between a business and an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy in the area around their home or business (called the curtilage). In Hall, a government agent seized a bag of shredded documents from a dumpster located on the property of Bet-Air, Inc. Hall filed a motion to suppress the evidence on the grounds that the search and seizure was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Review United States v. Hall and discuss the following:What was the Court of Appeal’s decision? Was the search and seizure a violation of the Fourth Amendment? Why or why not? Would the result have been different if the dumpster was on private property rather than on commercial property? Suppose you were an executive at Bet-Air. What recommendations would you make to help Bet-Air assert an expectation of privacy in the dumpster? Include at least one scholarly source

1. What was the Court of Appeal’s decision?

In the U.S. v. Hall, 47 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 1995), the Court of Appeal ruled that Terrence Hall, chairman of Bet-Air, Inc., was liable for conviction. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the shredded trash placed inside the dumpster located fort yards down a private road. The defendant did not take reasonable steps to restrict the public’s access to the dumpster area, hence the inapplicability of Fourth Amendment protections. The court upheld the District’s Court judgment that sentenced Hall to a fifty-one months imprisonment.

• Was the search and seizure a violation of the Fourth Amendment? Why or why not?

No, the search and seizure was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. According to the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Test, an expectation is one that the society recognize as reasonable (Hirose, 2016). The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places (Price, 2015). The dumpster location on Bet-Air’s private property does not support a reasonable expectation of privacy to the society because there were no objective signs of restricted access such as signs or barricades. Additionally, when officer Park traveled the road, he believed it was a public road, and Hall did not provide evidence to support otherwise.

• Would the result have been different if the dumpster was on private property rather than on commercial property?

Yes. If it was a private property, the Fourth Amendment protections would apply. Park would have known that it was private property at the time of entry. Hence, any evidence gathered during the warrantless search would be void. Consequently, the Hall would not be found guilty based on the documents seized during the search.

• Suppose you were an executive at Bet-Air. What recommendations would you make to help Bet-Air assert an expectation of privacy in the dumpster?

From the Bet-Air executive’s viewpoint, it would be necessary to have signs of the restricted areas or barricades. The company should mark the dumpster as private property with its name or logo and possibly have the area barricaded from public access.

References

Hirose, M. (2016). Privacy in public spaces: The reasonable expectation of privacy against the dragnet use of facial recognition technology. Conn. L. Rev., 49, 1591.

Price, M. W. (2015). Rethinking Privacy: Fourth Amendment Papers and the Third-Party Doctrine. J. Nat’l Sec. L. & Pol’y, 8, 247.

United States v. Terrence Hall, 47 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 1995) (https://casetext.com/case/us-v-hall-236 1995).