Summary
finding that a driveway was not located within the curtilage of the residence where it was used for ingress to and egress from the residence, was not within an enclosure of any kind, and was not obstructed in any way from the public's observation
Summary of this case from U.S. v. NETHOpinion
CASE NO.: CR208-25.
March 18, 2009
ORDER
Presently before the Court are Defendant Saul Alvin Arthur, Ill's ("Defendant") Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. In his Objections, Defendant asserts the Magistrate Judge did not address his contention that the police officers did not have a legitimate police purpose to enter upon private property. Defendant also asserts that the assertion that his car was parked in an area which is purportedly a high crime area does not mean he is entitled to any lesser protection under the Constitution. Defendant further asserts he was subjected to a custodial interrogation before he was read his Miranda rights. Finally, Defendant asserts the police officers did not have a reason to pursue a criminal investigation after looking inside his car.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Defendant misconstrues the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The officers did not conduct a search of Defendant's vehicle. The officers merely looked into a vehicle with an illuminated dome light, which was parked a few feet from the road way, and noticed a firearm in the car. This is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, nor was Defendant's car parked in an area which would provide protection to Defendant under the Fourth Amendment. The officers then approached the residence to ask why there was a presumably loaded firearm in a vehicle parked in an area having the reputation of being a high crime area. This was a reasonable response to what the officers saw. Officers Udulutch and Scott were not required to give Defendant Miranda warnings initially because Defendant was not in custody at any time during which the officers tried to determine the owner of this vehicle.
Defendant's Objections are without merit and are overruled. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted as the opinion of the Court. Defendant's "Motion to Suppress and to Dismiss" is DENIED.