This case involves a trespassing drug distributor and his blatant disregard of national park camping rules and regulations. This Court, on de novo review, should affirm the district court’s denial of the motion for new trial because Yorke lacked an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his tent as a home and a container. The district court correctly applied the two-prong test for the right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment. A person must possess both a subjective expectation of privacy and objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. The district court correctly concluded that Yorke manifested a subjective expectation of privacy, but his expectation was not objectively reasonable because of his direct violations of park…show more content… As stated in the record, Yorke believes his tent is his home. However, Yorke chose to be homeless and reside in a tent in national parks. Yorke’s subjective expectation of privacy in his tent as a home is not objectively reasonable when examined in the totality of the circumstances. Factors to consider include whether Yorke was legally on the premises, whether he could exclude others, and whether he took precautions to maintain his privacy.
Several courts have found the important factor to examine is whether the individual is legally on the premises. The First and Tenth Circuit have found that squatters have no legitimate expectation of privacy when they are subject to immediate ejectment. Additionally, courts have found that when trespassers place their property where they have no right to be, then they no legitimate expectation that the property will be undisturbed. Courts have also found that when one is conscious of their illegality it further negates his or her legitimate expectation of…show more content… The special protections under the Fourth Amendment do not extend to activities conducted outdoors in open areas. This includes areas that are open and accessible to the public and the police in ways that a home would not be. In the present case, DEA agents were at the national park investigating a tip from a credible source. Agents located the unoccupied tent outside the designated camping area in violation of federal park rules in an area open and accessible to the public. Yorke even admitted to moving his tent outside the designated camping area and there was no sign he would return. When analyzing his lack of ability to exclude others and lack of precautions to maintain his privacy with the important factor that he was unlawfully on the premises, this Court should conclude that Yorke lacked an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his tent as
