In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

August Term 2024 Argued: December 2, 2024 Decided: March 7, 2025

No. 23-7106

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. KENSTON HARRY, Defendant-Appellant. *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut

Before: LYNCH, LEE, AND PÉREZ, Circuit Judges.

On appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Arterton, J.).

Defendant-Appellant Kenston Harry raises a question of first impression in this Circuit: whether the government’s warrantless use of a stationary pole camera situated outside an individual’s business for approximately 50 days qualifies as a Fourth Amendment search. Because we conclude that it does not, we hold that the district court was not required to exclude the pole-camera footage at Harry’s criminal trial for drug trafficking. Additionally, we determine that the district court properly concluded that Harry is not entitled to “safety-valve” relief under * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official caption as set forth above. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), which provides that where specified criteria are met, a court is not required to impose any statutory minimum set forth in the Controlled Substances Act. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. AFFIRMED.

CONOR M. REARDON (Patrick J. Doherty, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), of counsel, Assistant United States Attorney, New Haven, CT, for Vanessa Roberts Avery, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, for Appellee.

BRUCE S. HARVEY (Brandon A. Bullard, The Bullard Law Firm, Atlanta, GA, on the brief), Law Office of Bruce S. Harvey, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.

MYRNA PÉREZ, Circuit Judge:

This appeal chiefly concerns the admissibility of pole-camera evidence obtained without a warrant in a criminal proceeding, which raises a novel Fourth Amendment question in this Circuit. Defendant-Appellant Kenston Harry appeals a judgment of conviction for possessing controlled substances with intent to distribute and conspiracy to accomplish the same. We conclude that, in the circumstances present here, law enforcement’s use of a stationary pole camera to monitor the exterior of Harry’s business did not constitute a search requiring a warrant.

2 Harry also appeals his sentence. Applying our precedent, we determine that the district court did not err in finding that Harry had not met his burden of showing he is entitled under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) to “safety-valve” relief from his ten-year mandatory minimum. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

BACKGROUND

The events relevant to this appeal center, in the main, on the Action Audio Store (“Action Audio”), an automotive business in Hartford, Connecticut, that Harry owned and operated. The exterior of Action Audio and its adjoining parking lot are situated in a “triangle” bordered by two streets. Appellant’s App’x 57–64; Gov’t’s App’x 585–87. On one side of the parking lot, there is a low fence with railings spaced far enough apart to view the parking lot clearly through them. Id. In addition, that fence bore, at the time of the