Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
However, curtilage is afforded less protection than a home. Absent "No Trespassing" signs or fences with locked gates, it is considered reasonable for a person (including a police officer) to walk from a public area to the obvious main entrance to the home using the most obvious path in order to "knock and talk" with a resident. But otherwise ...
[C]urtilage questions should be resolved with particular reference to four factors: the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by ...
Open fields near Lisbon, Ohio.. The open-fields doctrine (also open-field doctrine or open-fields rule), in the U.S. law of criminal procedure, is the legal doctrine that a "warrantless search of the area outside a property owner's curtilage" does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In law, the curtilage of a dwelling is the land immediately surrounding it, including any closely associated buildings and structures. It delineates the boundary within which a homeowner can have a reasonable expectation of privacy with particular relevance to search and seizure , conveyancing of real property , burglary, trespass , and land ...
This case may provide some argument or protection in the area of reasonable expectation of privacy in one's home and curtilage given the rapid advancement of drone technology, particularly given law enforcements' stated intent to deploy these technologies.
California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.
Case history; Prior: Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: Holding; Open fields cannot support a reasonable expectation of privacy and are thus not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Riley successfully argued before the trial court that the aerial search violated his reasonable expectation of privacy and Fourth Amendment rights. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal disagreed, siding instead with the state, [3] but the Florida Supreme Court agreed with Riley and overturned the Court of Appeal.