CA8: Walkway to front door where mailbox was wasn’t protected curtilage

Defendant’s front yard wasn’t curtilage where there was a walkway to the mailbox by the door. Blood spatter was visible. The officers then went through a fence based on exigency. The observations supported a warrant. United States v. McGhee, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4680 (8th Cir. Feb. 28, 2025).

Defendant’s post-conviction petition was denied without a hearing. On the Fourth Amendment claim, it was a rehash of the same claim on appeal, and denied. State v. Brown, 2025-Ohio-668 (5th Dist. Feb. 20, 2025).*

The search warrants here were supported by probable cause based on the statements of the reliable citizen informants and the supporting facts. The search warrants were particular in describing the items to be seized and the limitations on the search. And, even if the initial seizure of the cell phone was unlawful, the independent source doctrine applied because the search warrants were valid and not influenced by any prior unlawful action. State v. Tyson, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 342 (Feb. 25, 2025).*

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

Comments are closed.