Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Chartier
Citation: 114 F. App'x 778Docket: No. 03-10584. D.C. No. CR-02-00469-WBS
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; October 1, 2004; Federal Appellate Court
Randall Chartier appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy and manufacturing of marijuana. The court affirms the conviction but vacates the sentence, remanding for resentencing based on Blakely v. Washington and United States v. Ameline. Chartier argues that law enforcement's search of his marijuana patch violated the Fourth Amendment as it encroached on the curtilage of his residence. The court disagrees, applying the four factors from United States v. Dunn to determine that the marijuana patch was not protected curtilage. 1. The marijuana patch was located a significant distance from the residence. 2. There were no fences or enclosures defining the curtilage, only a distant metal gate that did not serve this purpose. 3. The patch was not used for residential purposes, as growing marijuana is considered an open-field activity. 4. Chartier’s efforts to shield the patch from view were insufficient to classify it as curtilage. The court rules that the marijuana patch does not fall under Fourth Amendment protection and does not address the government's additional justifications for the search. Regarding sentencing, Chartier contests the district court's finding that he was the leader of the operation, which was not established by a jury, raising a potential Blakely issue. The court acknowledges this concern and vacates the sentence for reconsideration. The final ruling is to affirm the conviction, vacate the sentence, and remand for resentencing, with the clerk directed to issue the mandate immediately. The disposition is not for publication and cannot be cited in future cases except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.