CA10: There was no violation of curtilage for def’s home on grounds of 24/7 storage company

Defendant lived on the grounds of a 24/7 storage building company. At 2:30 am, officers investigating saw cars coming and going from the residence. They approached his building, and the approach way wasn’t curtilage under Dunn. United States v. Powell, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 39684 (10th Cir. Dec. 17, 2020).*

Defendant didn’t have standing as a vehicle passenger, so the question of consent is moot. United States v. Jones, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237280 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 17, 2020).*

“Having accepted the district court’s findings of fact, we conclude Officers Tarwater and Whetro had probable cause to believe Holly had committed a traffic violation. Therefore, the stop of Holly’s vehicle was reasonable and not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Even if one of the officers was mistaken about actually observing the violation, the surrounding circumstances—the speed of the SUV and its position relative to the patrol vehicle—could lead a reasonable officer to believe Holly had failed to stop as required by Missouri law.” United States v. Holly, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 39747 (8th Cir. Dec. 18, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Curtilage, Reasonable suspicion, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.