1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 553 F.3d
  5. 553 F.3d 286 (2009)
 

U.S. v. VANKESTEREN

No. 08-4110.

553 F.3d 286 (2009)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steve VANKESTEREN, Defendant-Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Decided: January 8, 2009.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

ARGUED: James Orlando Broccoletti, Zoby & Broccoletti, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Dee Mullarkey Sterling, Office of the United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge GREGORY wrote the opinion, in which Judge MOTZ and Judge SHEDD joined.

OPINION

GREGORY, Circuit Judge:

The appellant in this case, Steve Vankesteren, invites us to consider the application of the Fourth Amendment to a product of modern surveillance technology: namely, a hidden, fixed-range, motion-activated video camera placed in the appellant's open fields. We find that the protective wall of the Fourth Amendment does not shield the appellant from the Commonwealth's use of such a camera, and we therefore affirm the decision...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases