LA: Communal parking area at a “trailer park” was not curtilage

Defendant’s car in a “trailer park” communal parking area near his place was not on his “curtilage.” The court of appeals erred in finding it was curtilage. State v. Charles, 2025 La. LEXIS 1624 (Nov. 19, 2025).

“Here, the renewed warrant was issued after a controlled buy involving the target cellphone. In his affidavit, Beal described that transaction in detail, linked it to Hill’s cellphone, summarized the progress of the investigation, and referenced Hill’s prior federal prosecution and state arrests. Taken together, this information established a fair probability that GPS data from the phone would yield evidence of drug trafficking and demonstrated a clear nexus between Hill’s criminal activity and his cellphone. Far from boilerplate, the affidavit offered ‘powerful corroborative evidence for purposes of determining probable cause.’ …” United States v. Hill, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 30244 (2d Cir. Nov. 19, 2025).*

Shooting plaintiff in the eye with a pepper ball gun to disperse and not apprehend was not clearly established to be excessive force. Keup v. Sarpy Cty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 30228 (8th Cir. Nov. 19, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Curtilage, Excessive force, GPS / Tracking Data, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.