A federal judge concluded last month that two Huerfano County employees did not engage in an unconstitutional search when they approached the plaintiffs’ camper within 40 feet to investigate a potential code violation.

In July 2021, the county’s building inspector, Terry Sandoval, received a complaint about improper well construction on property designated for agricultural use. He and code enforcement officer Jeff Bensman arrived at an undeveloped field where Susan DeHerrera and Jose Guerrero were having contractors install a well water pump to their underground well. Their camper was parked more than a dozen yards away.

DeHerrera and Guerrero confronted the county employees, with Guerrero shoving Bensman’s arm. After about 10 minutes, the employees left.

DeHerrera and Guerrero sued the county, along with Sandoval and Bensman, alleging an unconstitutional search of their property, “for about one hour,” without obtaining an administrative warrant or the plaintiffs’ permission.

The defendants moved to end the lawsuit in their favor without a trial. They cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1924 recognition that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures “is not extended to the open fields.”

They argued that Sandoval and Bensman were at least 40 feet from the camper itself, and that no fence or other enclosure existed on the property. Moreover, the construction activity did not amount to “intimate domestic activity” associated with a home.

Because the well was their primary source of water, countered DeHerrera and Guerrero, “the intimate nature of the site and the precious resource it provided Plaintiffs infers that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the water well site — both its surface and its contents below — deserving scrupulous protection from government intrusion. If the water well site’s buried items — the water well and water pump — are protected, so too is the soil that surrounds them, even if located under an open field.”

In a March 25 order, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico agreed with the defendants.

“The well site where Bensman and Sandoval walked was not used for intimate activities of the home,” he wrote. “Bensman and Sandoval were standing in an open field, observing a well site that was either itself in an open field or within plain view of it.”

While Domenico determined there was no unconstitutional search, he added that no prior court cases involved circumstances in which similar conduct was found to violate the Fourth Amendment.

“Defendants Bensman and Sandoval could not have been on notice that their actions were unconstitutional even if there was a violation,” he wrote.

The case is DeHerrera et al. v. Huerfano County et al.