The Court held, "it does not."
In reaching this conclusion, the Court reviewed both the automobile exception and its own curtilage jurisprudence. It reiterated that, "[w]hen a law enforcement officer physically intrudes on the curtilage to gather evidence, a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment has occurred. Such conduct thus is presumptively unreasonable absent a warrant."
The Court further noted, "the scope of the automobile exception extends no further than the automobile itself." Moreover, “any valid warrantless seizure of incriminating evidence” requires that the officer “have a lawful right of access to the object itself.”
Here, officers did not have such a right. Thus, the search was improper.
As relevant, the Act provides that defendants must “reimburse the victim for lost income and necessary child care, transportation, and other expenses incurred during participation in the investigation or prosecution of the offense or attendance at proceedings related to the offense.” 18 U.S.C. §3663A(b)(4) (emphasis added).
The Court held that, in this context, restitution is limited to expenses incurred in connection with government investigations and criminal proceedings. Thus, the defendant could not be ordered to pay restitution for expenses resulting from private investigations or participation in corollary bankruptcy proceedings.
