## Facts

- Kenneth D. Widgren, Sr. owned about twenty acres of largely undeveloped rural land in Maple Grove Township, Michigan.
- In 2002, he began building a house on the property without obtaining a building permit; by spring 2003 a mowed, unfenced area surrounded the structure.
- A dirt driveway (over 1,000 feet) connected the house to a public road and had a metal gate with multiple “No Trespassing” signs.
- The house and its surroundings were not readily visible from public vantage points, except from one adjoining parcel and from the air.
- Township zoning administrator Louis Lenz entered the property twice: first to confirm construction without a permit, and later to post a civil infraction notice on the front door.
- Township tax assessor H. Wayne Beldo entered once to assess the property by observing only the exterior of the house and visible features in the area near it.
- None of the officials entered the interior of the house; the actions were limited to external observation and posting of notice.
- The Widgrens sued under the Fourth Amendment (and asserted state-law claims), alleging the entries were unconstitutional searches of protected areas.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on the federal claims and dismissed state-law claims without prejudice; the Widgrens appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether zoning and property tax inspections of the exterior of a house in a remote rural setting constitute a “search” under the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether the first and second entries were unprotected “open fields” activity despite a gate and “No Trespassing” signs.
3. Whether the tax assessor’s exterior inspection, even if within curtilage, invaded a reasonable expectation of privacy.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Township and officials on the Fourth Amendment claims.
- The court held that none of the three entries constituted a Fourth Amendment “search.”
- The court left undisturbed the dismissal without prejudice of the state-law claims.

## Legal Principles

- A Fourth Amendment “search” occurs only when government conduct invades an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy.
- Under the open-fields doctrine, undeveloped outdoor areas generally lack Fourth Amendment protection even when marked by “No Trespassing” signs.
- Curtilage is evaluated using proximity, enclosure, uses of the area, and steps taken to exclude observation, but curtilage status does not end the inquiry; the nature of the intrusion and information obtained matters.
- Government observation limited to a home’s exterior features, particularly for administrative purposes such as taxation or code enforcement and without entry into the interior, may not constitute a search.
- Posting a civil infraction notice on a door, without gathering information or probing private areas, is not treated as a search.

## Conclusion

The court held that brief, non-intrusive zoning and tax-related entries onto rural property—consisting of exterior observation and posting notice, without entering the home—did not violate the Fourth Amendment because they did not intrude upon an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy.


Widgren v. Maple Grove Twp., 429 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2005)