{"id":60549,"date":"2025-03-22T11:34:30","date_gmt":"2025-03-22T16:34:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=60549"},"modified":"2025-03-22T11:34:30","modified_gmt":"2025-03-22T16:34:30","slug":"pa-entry-of-curtilage-to-inquire-of-a-chop-shop-in-operation-was-reasonable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=60549","title":{"rendered":"PA: Entry of curtilage to inquire of a chop shop in operation was reasonable"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Officers saw defendant \u201cdissecting a motor vehicle in his driveway,\u201d i.e., running a chop shop, which they already suspected him of. They could enter the curtilage to inquire. Commonwealth v. Ewida<\/a>, 2025 PA Super 67, 2025 Pa. Super. LEXIS 128 (Mar. 20, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is a presumption that there was probable cause for a search warrant, and defendant doesn\u2019t show this one was lacking. Moreover, \u201cThe defendant has failed to provide any evidence to indicate, let alone establish, that the officers did not act in good faith in obtaining the search warrants of March 26 and April 5, 2024 and executing them.\u201d United States v. Bailey, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50460 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Texas consent must be by clear and convincing evidence, and this wasn\u2019t. \u201cDespite the fact that the investigative detention had concluded without finding any weapons or contraband, the two investigating officers did not move. They were both within arm’s reach, if not closer, of appellant, restraining his movement and preventing him from turning around before he was asked to consent to a search of his person. They forced his hands on the hood of the vehicle. The situation, like that in Carmouche, would not have led a reasonable person to conclude the search was optional.\u201d Madas v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 1863 (Tex. App. \u2013 Houston (14th Dist.) Mar. 20, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Officers saw defendant \u201cdissecting a motor vehicle in his driveway,\u201d i.e., running a chop shop, which they already suspected him of. They could enter the curtilage to inquire. Commonwealth v. Ewida, 2025 PA Super 67, 2025 Pa. Super. LEXIS 128 … Continue reading →<\/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":[24,19,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60549","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-consent","category-curtilage","category-probable-cause"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60549","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=60549"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60549\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":60550,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60549\/revisions\/60550"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=60549"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=60549"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=60549"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}