UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CHRISTOPHER PAYTON MAY-SHAW - Articles

All Content

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CHRISTOPHER PAYTON MAY-SHAW

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Apr 8, 2020

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Patrick J. Hanley, Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Tonya R. Long, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Patrick J. Hanley, Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Sally J. Berens, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee. Christopher Payton May-Shaw, Sandstone, Minnesota, pro se.

Judge(s): MERRITT, CLAY, and BUSH, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Christopher May-Shaw was sentenced to 144 months in prison after he entered a conditional guilty plea to a charge of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The conviction arose from police surveillance of a parking lot near his apartment building and a covered carport next to that building, where May-Shaw parked his BMW, one of his several vehicles. The surveillance lasted for twenty-three days and used a camera affixed to a telephone pole on a public street and cameras in a surveillance van parked in the parking lot. After witnessing May-Shaw engage in several suspected drug deals, the police used a drug-detecting dog to sniff the BMW. The dog indicated the presence of narcotics in the vehicle. Based on the dog sniff and the surveillance, the officers obtained a search warrant for May-Shaw’s apartment and all of his vehicles. The search found evidence of drug distribution, including cash, wrappers, and cocaine. The district court denied his motion under the Fourth Amendment to suppress the evidence from his apartment and vehicles. May-Shaw then entered a conditional guilty plea for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, but he preserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.

As explained below, May-Shaw did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the carport such that police surveillance constituted a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Nor was the carport within the curtilage of his apartment such that the dog sniff was unconstitutional. Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of May-Shaw’s motion to suppress.

Attachments: