M.D.Pa.: Tent in an open field might have had REP, but it was open to view inside and plain view applied

Assuming defendant’s tent in an “open field” area had a reasonable expectation of privacy (as the Ninth Circuit would hold), the tent was open and the officer could see in. There was no curtilage to the tent in an open field. Further search was justified by consent. United States v. Madziarek, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38141 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 2021).

“Based on a de novo review, the Court finds that the issuing judge could reasonably have concluded that a fair probability existed that evidence of the alleged assault would be found in the residence where Warren was arrested.” Moreover, the good faith exception applies. As to a cell phone found in a car, defendant didn’t show any reasonable expectation of privacy in it to challenge the search. As to a Facebook account warrant, a fair probability was shown that communications between defendant and drug customers would be found there, and the good faith exception also applies. United States v. Warren, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37607 (D. Minn. Mar. 1, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Curtilage, Plain view, feel, smell, Probable cause, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.