{"id":58476,"date":"2024-07-26T12:44:31","date_gmt":"2024-07-26T17:44:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=58476"},"modified":"2024-07-26T12:44:31","modified_gmt":"2024-07-26T17:44:31","slug":"mt-no-rep-from-look-in-apt-window-from-common-area-of-apt-complex-not-his-curtilage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=58476","title":{"rendered":"MT: No REP from look in apt window from common area of apt complex; not his curtilage"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Officers did not violate defendant\u2019s reasonable expectation of privacy by looking in the window of his apartment from a common area in his apartment complex. It was not his curtilage. <a href=\"https:\/\/searchcourts.mt.gov\/PerceptiveJUDSupremeCourt\/APP\/connector\/1\/224\/url\/1F1E0F4C-E20F-CAD6-9C87-90E172900001.pdf\">City of Whitefish v. Zumwalt<\/a>, 2024 MT 153, 2024 Mont. LEXIS 783 (July 23, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>CBP officers had reasonable suspicion for this border search of defendant\u2019s cell phone. \u201cThe Court&#8217;s ruling today, particularly in light of Mendez, with its almost identical fact pattern, should come as no surprise. As the Seventh Circuit noted there, \u2018in more than 200 years of border search precedent, neither the Supreme Court nor we have ever found a border search unconstitutional.\u2019 103 F.4th at 1307. This case offers no basis to deviate from that long-standing precedent.\u201d United States v. Hussain, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129133 (N.D. Ill. July 23, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Defendant\u2019s Franks claim is based on a false assumption of the source of telephone call. United States v. Wright, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129412 (D. Neb. July 22, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Officers did not violate defendant\u2019s reasonable expectation of privacy by looking in the window of his apartment from a common area in his apartment complex. It was not his curtilage. City of Whitefish v. Zumwalt, 2024 MT 153, 2024 Mont. &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=58476\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,5,19,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-58476","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-border-search","category-cell-phones","category-curtilage","category-franks-doctrine"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58476","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\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=58476"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58476\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":58477,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58476\/revisions\/58477"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=58476"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=58476"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=58476"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}