{"id":23365,"date":"2016-08-15T00:01:27","date_gmt":"2016-08-15T05:01:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=23365"},"modified":"2016-08-14T09:54:42","modified_gmt":"2016-08-14T14:54:42","slug":"vi-no-rep-in-a-bag-on-ground-outside-an-apt-building","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=23365","title":{"rendered":"VI: No REP in a bag on ground outside an apt building"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant\u2019s apartment was subjected to a search warrant, and defendant argued that a Crown Royal bag outside on the ground was outside the scope of the warrant and couldn\u2019t be seized. The court applies Dunn and the curtilage analysis to find that it wasn\u2019t curtilage because of the \u201csheer number of people\u201d who could walk by there, and there wasn\u2019t a reasonable expectation of privacy in that place. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.visuperiorcourt.org\/opinions\/pdfs\/ST-15-CR-234.pdf\">People v. George<\/a>, 2016 V.I. LEXIS 103 (Super. Ct. Aug. 5, 2016).*<\/p>\n<p>Defendant was the target of a sex trafficking investigation in Wasilla AK, and the information came in over three months and was corroborated by text messages and listening to telephone calls in the two weeks prior to the warrant\u2019s issuance. The offense was ongoing, and the warrant was not constitutionally stale by the time it was issued. There was also a Franks challenge rejected as immaterial to the finding of probable cause. United States v. Keehn, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105003 (D.Alaska May 23, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant\u2019s apartment was subjected to a search warrant, and defendant argued that a Crown Royal bag outside on the ground was outside the scope of the warrant and couldn\u2019t be seized. The court applies Dunn and the curtilage analysis to &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=23365\">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":[19,21,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23365","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-curtilage","category-franks-doctrine","category-reasonable-expectation-of-privacy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23365","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=23365"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23365\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23366,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23365\/revisions\/23366"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=23365"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=23365"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=23365"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}