Defendant\u2019s car was searched under the automobile exception in his driveway. There\u2019s 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. \u201cThe driveway is not enclosed nor is it protected from observation. \u2026 The driveway is part of an area that is easily visible and accessible to others\u2014especially the occupants of nearby townhouses. \u2026 Four other vehicles were parked in the same continuous driveway \u2026\u201d \u201cFinally, the Court concludes the driveway is not used for an \u2018intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man’s home and privacies of life.\u2019 Dunn, 480 U.S. at 300 (citation modified).\u201d United States v. Trujillo, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237410 (D.N.M. Oct. 16, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The officer\u2019s omission of another IP address from the affidavit for search warrant isn\u2019t material to the probable cause finding. United States v. Perrote, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236805 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 15, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The search incident of defendant\u2019s bag was reasonable, and consent doesn\u2019t even have to be decided. United States v. Guardipee, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236100 (D. Mont. Oct. 15, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s car was searched under the automobile exception in his driveway. There\u2019s 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. \u201cThe driveway is … Continue reading