Before granting in part and denying in part Mr. Conrad's motion to suppress evidence, the district court held an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Conrad, 578 F.Supp.2d 1016 (N.D.Ill.2008). Because the parties disavow any challenge to the accuracy of those factual findings, the district court's findings presented below will govern on appeal.

Further, there is undisputed evidence in the record that the videotape made by DeLack from the Reardon/Alstrom kitchen window could have been made from the public sidewalk or public street because the Stebics' backyard was visible to the public from many vantage points. Cf. United States v. Conrad, 578 F.Supp.2d 1016, 1029 (N.D. Ill. 2008) ("Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a police officer's naked eye observations made of a constitutionally protected area from the vantage point of a public place"). Meanwhile, although DeLack used a zoom lens in videotaping the Stebics' backyard, when objects are in plain view, there is no legitimate expectation of privacy.

The Court provides here a brief summary of the evidence that the parties presented to the jury at trial. For a more thorough discussion of the facts underlying this case, see United States v. Conrad, 578 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (N.D. Ill. 2008), and United States v. Conrad, 668 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (N.D. Ill. 2009), which the Court issued after lengthy suppression hearings in this case.

In addition, the record shows that the patio is connected to the home by a back door such that residents of the home can walk directly onto the patio from inside the home. United States v. Conrad, 578 F.Supp.2d 1016, 1027–1028 (N.D.Ill.2008). {¶ 20} Likewise, the second factor supports a finding that the back patio is part of the home's curtilage.

See Mtn. to Suppress, at 21 (Dckt. No. 35, at 24 of 50). He cites United States v. Conrad, 578 F.Supp.2d 1016, 1035-36 (N.D. Ill. 2008), to support this proposition, but the similarities between the police misconduct in that case and the case at hand are few. In Conrad, law enforcement illegally entered the defendant's curtilage after ringing the doorbell and phoning the residence on and off for two hours.

The Court gives little weight to these claims, however, as McGill declined to subject them to cross-examination or provide the Court an opportunity to assess his credibility at the hearing. See, e.g., United States v. Conrad, 578 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1021 (N.D. Ill. 2008), aff'd, 673 F.3d 728 (7th Cir. 2012) (affording defendant's affidavit "substantially less weight" than the credible testimony provided by law enforcement officers at suppression hearing). In fact, McGill's claims about key facts were repeatedly proved untrue at the hearing.

( Id. ¶ 44.) Cf. United States v. Conrad, 578 F.Supp.2d 1016, 1029 (N.D. Ill. 2008) ("Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a police officer's naked eye observations made of a constitutionally protected area from the vantage point of a public place"). Meanwhile, although DeLack used a zoom lens in videotaping the Stebics' backyard, when objects are in plain view, there is no legitimate expectation of privacy.

On September 24, 2008, following a three-day suppression hearing, the Court suppressed certain evidence that law enforcement agents had obtained at the Geneva Residence on December 20, 2002, including a laptop computer Defendant had retrieved from his Porsche. See United States v. Conrad, 578 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1036 (N.D. Ill. 2008). The evidence was suppressed because law enforcement agents violated Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights when they entered the curtilage at the Geneva Residence.