Defendant backed into his driveway and that was curtilage. The police had neither a warrant nor exigent circumstances to come and look at his car to justify a plain view of an open container than led to finding a gun. United States v. Odom, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213316 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 21, 2026). (Also, fn.3: “The Sixth Circuit has suggested, albeit without expressly holding, that ‘regularly parking’ in an area ‘arguably’ supports a finding of curtilage under the use-of-the-area Dunn factor, at least if coupled with the ‘legal right to exclude others.’ …. If this principle is correct, that is another mark in favor of curtilage, as Odom parks on his driveway and has the right to ask others to leave his property. See Wolford v. Lopez, 146 S. Ct. 2032, 2049, 225 L. Ed. 2d 494 (2026) (acknowledging ‘the undisputed principle that the owner of private property is generally free to exclude anyone from entering without consent’). Because it is not fully clear if the Sixth Circuit has endorsed this idea, however, the Court does not rely on it.”).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Inevitable discovery applied here because defendant\u2019s vehicle was subject to tow when the police decided to conduct a dog sniff. United States v. Benavides, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213358 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 21, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In Ohio, ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be made on appeal if they could be. Here, it came up post-conviction, but the court concludes it was available all along, so it\u2019s now barred by res judicata. State v. Allen, 2026-Ohio-3691 (3d Dist. Sep. 21, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant backed into his driveway and that was curtilage. The police had neither a warrant nor exigent circumstances to come and look at his car to justify a plain view of an open container than led to finding a gun. … Continue reading