D.N.M.: Shared driveway outside of fence and gate was not curtilage

Defendant’s car was searched under the automobile exception in his driveway. There’s a fence and gate between the car on the driveway and the front door. All things considered under Dunn, this driveway is not the curtilage. “The driveway is not enclosed nor is it protected from observation. … The driveway is part of an area that is easily visible and accessible to others—especially the occupants of nearby townhouses. … Four other vehicles were parked in the same continuous driveway …” “Finally, the Court concludes the driveway is not used for an ‘intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man’s home and privacies of life.’ Dunn, 480 U.S. at 300 (citation modified).” United States v. Trujillo, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237410 (D.N.M. Oct. 16, 2026).

The officer’s omission of another IP address from the affidavit for search warrant isn’t material to the probable cause finding. United States v. Perrote, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236805 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 15, 2026).*

The search incident of defendant’s bag was reasonable, and consent doesn’t even have to be decided. United States v. Guardipee, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236100 (D. Mont. Oct. 15, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Curtilage, Franks doctrine, Search incident. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.