U.S. v. Eng, 84-1907
| Decision Date | 30 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1907,84-1907 |
| Citation | 753 F.2d 683 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael Francis ENG, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
David W. Russell, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.
Robert E. Larsen, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.
Before HEANEY, ROSS and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges.
Michael Francis Eng appeals from his conviction of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1) (1982). Eng contends the district court 1 erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence seized from his farm by two troopers of the Missouri State Highway Patrol because: (1) the troopers did not have a search warrant and the area in which the evidence was seized falls within the curtilage of his residence and is not an open field; and (2) the troopers were without state authorization to seize evidence beyond the jurisdiction of the state highways. Eng also contends that the district court committed plain error by failing to rule sua sponte that the evidence of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. We affirm.
In September, 1983, a Missouri State Highway Patrol trooper received information from a confidential source that marijuana was being cultivated on Michael Francis Eng's farm. On September 29, 1983, a Highway Patrol trooper and a detective from the Boone County Sheriff's Department set up surveillance on the Eng residence. The officers watched two unidentified white males leave the residence and drive to a wooded area to the rear of the property some 400 yards from the residence. The officers then left. On October 3, 1983, two Highway Patrol troopers returned, without a warrant, to the Eng farm where they came upon a marijuana patch located at the rear of the farm approximately 325 yards from the Eng residence. The troopers followed a path from the patch into the woods where they discovered a marijuana processing area approximately 400 yards from Eng's residence and, approximately 100 to 125 yards from the nearest building, a small shed. At this processing area, there were numerous marijuana plants, three large piles of marijuana plant stems, cultivating tools, drying racks, storage containers, and what turned out to be "about" thirteen pounds of dried marijuana buds. The officers then waited in surveillance until Eng and a companion arrived at the processing area and began cutting buds from the marijuana stems. The officers arrested Eng and his companion, and seized the marijuana and cultivation equipment. One of the troopers weighed the marijuana and had the evidence analyzed by a forensic chemist, who determined that the substance was marijuana and that the cultivation tools were covered with marijuana residue. The state troopers retained some of the marijuana but destroyed the bulk of it.
On November 3, a federal grand jury for the Western District of Missouri indicted Eng and his companion on two counts of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1) (1982). Count one charged both defendants with possessing thirteen pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute, and count two charged Eng with possessing with intent to distribute 157 pounds of marijuana, which was seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant.
With respect to count two, the district court granted Eng's motion to suppress evidence of the 157 pounds of marijuana and related evidence seized from the residence pursuant to a search warrant, and the government does not appeal this ruling. With respect to count one, the court denied the motion to suppress the evidence of the thirteen pounds of marijuana and cultivation and processing equipment seized from the marijuana patch and processing area. The court based this denial on the magistrate's finding that no warrant was required for the search of the marijuana patch and processing area because these areas were "open fields" not within the "curtilage" of Eng's residence as set forth in Oliver v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984). The court also adopted the magistrate's finding that it was irrelevant whether the state highway patrol troopers were without authority, under Mo.Stat. Sec. 43.200 (Supp.1984), to make the search of the field because under United States v. Montgomery, 708 F.2d 343 (8th Cir.1983), and United States v. Ross, 713 F.2d 389 (8th Cir.1983), the propriety of the search and seizure is to be judged as if it had been made by federal officers.
A trial on count one of the indictment was held, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Eng appeals.
Eng's first argument is that the district court should have suppressed the evidence seized by the Missouri State Highway Patrol troopers because the troopers did not have a search warrant and the area in which the evidence was seized falls within the curtilage of the defendant's residence and is not an open field.
On April 17, 1984, in Oliver v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the open fields doctrine permits police officers to enter and search, without a warrant, an open field which is not within the curtilage of the defendant's home. The Court gave little guidance on the distinction between an open field and the curtilage other than indicating that the curtilage is "the area around the home to which the activity of home life extends." Id., --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. at 1343 n. 12, and that this area is determined "by reference to the factors that determine whether an individual reasonably may expect that an area immediately adjacent to the home will remain private." Id., --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. at 1743.
This court has defined the curtilage by looking at the facts of the case including the proximity of the searched area to the dwelling, the inclusion of the area within the general enclosure surrounding the dwelling, and the use of the area by the inhabitants. United States v. Biondich, 652 F.2d 743, 745 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 975, 102 S.Ct. 527, 70 L.Ed.2d 395 (1982); McDowell v. United States, 383 F.2d 599, 603 (8th Cir.1967).
We agree with the district court that the marijuana patch and processing area where Eng was arrested and the "about" thirteen pounds of marijuana and related evidence were seized was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Moore
...prosecution because state law was violated. See United States v. Pforzheimer, 826 F.2d 200, 204 (2d Cir.1987); United States v. Eng, 753 F.2d 683, 686 (8th Cir.1985); United States v. Montgomery, 708 F.2d 343, 344 (8th Cir.1983). However, we do not read these decisions to mean that federal ......
-
U.S. v. Timley
...of comity may favor federal courts excluding evidence seized by state officers in violation of state law. See, e.g., United States v. Eng, 753 F.2d 683, 686 (8th Cir.1985). We have also held, however, that a procedural violation of state or federal law in securing a warrant ought not result......
-
U.S. v. Bieri
...uphold a district court's ruling regarding the validity of a search by state officers unless it is clearly erroneous. United States v. Eng, 753 F.2d 683, 686 (8th Cir.1985). A court must examine the legality of a search by state officers as if made by federal officers. Id. We recently concl......
-
U.S. v. Maholy
...court in the first instance, it is usually irrelevant whether a state rule of criminal procedure was violated. Cf. United States v. Eng, 753 F.2d 683, 686 (8th Cir.1985) (federal court need not suppress evidence obtained by state officers in violation of a state statute); United States v. M......