Ind.Tax: There’s a difference between “curtilage” in state tax law and the 4A

“While search and seizure law and property tax law are distinct in their legal frameworks and objectives, the definition of ‘curtilage’ used in search and seizure inquiries under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not contain any express size or acreage limitations.” “As noted, the Court need not reconcile the differences between the varying definitions of ‘curtilage’ to resolve the question in this case. It is enough that none of the definitions identified by this Court reference fixed size or acreage limitations as a factor. The inquiry depends entirely on other factors, including the presence of a fence or enclosure and, in some formulations, the use of the property itself.” Sawlani v. Lake Cty. Assessor, 2024 Ind. Tax LEXIS 36 n.14 (T.C. July 24, 2024).

On the totality, “[u]pon review of the interrogation and testimony of Investigator Bolte, which it finds credible, the Court concludes it was reasonable for Investigator Bolte to believe Hudson consented to the search of his cell phone.” He voiced wanting to talk to a lawyer, but backed off. United States v. Hudson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129927 (D. Neb. June 14, 2024).*

2241 habeas petitioner filed before conviction while detained in state court. His speedy trial and Fourth Amendment claims have never been presented to state court, and it’s dismissed. Coleman v. Young, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129937 (S.D. Miss. June 28, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128447 (S.D. Miss. July 22, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Curtilage, Issue preclusion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.