{"id":4094,"date":"2012-02-08T06:25:50","date_gmt":"2010-04-23T09:56:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-04-23T09:56:00","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4094","title":{"rendered":"N.C.: Consent to search a house includes outbuildings"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Consent to search a house includes outbuildings because a search warrant for a house includes outbuildings. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.aoc.state.nc.us\/www\/public\/coa\/opinions\/2010\/pdf\/091092-1.pdf\">State v. Hagin<\/a>, 203 N.C. App. 561, 691 S.E.2d 429 (2010):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>When a search is conducted pursuant to a valid search warrant, &#8220;[t]he premises of a dwelling house include, for search and seizure purposes, the area within the curtilage.&#8221; State v. Courtright, 60 N.C. App. 247, 249, 298 S.E.2d 740, 742, &#8230;. The search of an outbuilding within the curtilage of the home does not exceed the scope of a warrant permitting the search of a suspect&#8217;s property. See State v. Travatello, 24 N.C. App. 511, 513, 211 S.E.2d 467, 469 (1975)  (holding that &#8220;[t]he search of the defendant&#8217;s premises did not exceed the scope of the warrant by including a tool shed as well as the house itself.&#8221;); &#8230;. Searches within proscribed limits, but conducted in areas different than those described in a warrant, do not exceed the scope of a search. &#8230;<\/p>\n<p>We hold that these principles used to define the scope of a search warrant are equally applicable to our analysis of the scope of a search conducted pursuant to consent. Defendant expressly consented to a search of all of the personal or real property at 19 Doc Wyatt Road. He does not contest that the outbuilding was located within the curtilage of his residence. The search of the outbuilding was within the scope of consent given in this case.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Reasonable mistake of fact may support a traffic stop. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.aoc.state.nc.us\/www\/public\/coa\/opinions\/2010\/pdf\/091211-1.pdf\">State v. Hopper<\/a>, 692 S.E.2d 166 (N.C. App. 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4094\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4094","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4094","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4094"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4094\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4094"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4094"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4094"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}