United States v. Dunn
United States Supreme Court
480 U.S. 294 (1987)
- Written by DeAnna Swearingen, LLM
Facts
In 1980, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents began investigating Ronald Dale Dunn and Robert Lyle Carpenter (defendants) after learning that Carpenter had purchased paraphernalia used for making drugs. The DEA agents secured warrants from a Texas judge to place tracking devices in items ordered by Carpenter. On November 5, 1980, agents tracked the items to Dunn’s ranch. There were perimeter and interior fences on the ranch. A large barn about fifty yards from the home’s fence line had fencing, gates, and netting surrounding the entrance. Law enforcement entered the ranch without a warrant, crossed several fences, and looked into the barn. The DEA agent believed he smelled phenylacetic acid and saw a phenylacetone laboratory. The next day, the officers returned to the property to verify what they had seen and secured a warrant from a Federal Magistrate to search the ranch. On November 8, 1980, the officers searched the ranch, seized drugs and paraphernalia, and arrested Dunn. Dunn and Carpenter were convicted of violating 21 U.S.C. § 846 for the possession, manufacture, and/or distribution of amphetamine and phenylacetone. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the barn was protected under the Fourth Amendment as part of the curtilage of the house.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)
Dissent (Brennan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 787,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
