Citation network
United States Vs. Dunn
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 03, 1987
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 294 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. DunnSearch
-
U.S. 294 (1987) United States v. DunnSearch
-
were convicted. In a decision rendered in 1982, the Court of Appeals reversed respondent's conviction. United States v. DunnSearch
-
vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Oliver v. UnitedSearch
-
the house itself. The concept plays a part, however, in interpreting the reach of the Fourth Amendment. Hester v. UnitedSearch
-
We reaffirmed the holding of Hester in Oliver v. UnitedSearch
-
Ibid. (quoting Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by. See California v. CiraoloSearch
-
U. S. 207 , 476 U. S. 221 (1986) (POWELL, J., dissenting) (citing Care v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. VanSearch
-
the barn is an essential part of his business. Brief for Respondent 9. Respondent overlooks the significance of Oliver v. UnitedSearch
-
but not decided, was protected by the Fourth Amendment does not affect our conclusion. Last Term, in California v. CiraoloSearch
-
plants growing on an area protected by the Fourth Amendment. Ibid. Finally, the plurality opinion in Texas v. BrownSearch
-
The holding in United States v. LeeSearch
-
fence before approaching Dunn's farmhouse or either of his two barns. United States v. DunnSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Dunn's reasonable expectation of privacy in the barn or its contents. Id. at 884. II A In Oliver v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 466 U. S. 170 (1984), the Court affirmed its holding in Hester v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 180 (quoting Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
Walker v. UnitedSearch
-
Luman v. OklahomaSearch
-
of state courts have consistently held that barns are included within the curtilage of a farmhouse. See, e.g., Brown v. OklahomaSearch
-
McGlothlin v. StateSearch
-
State v. FiergeSearch
-
State v. SimpsonSearch
-
Bunn v. StateSearch
-
State v. VicarsSearch
-
State v. BrowningSearch
-
quoting State v. FrizzelleSearch
-
Norman v. StateSearch
-
Brinlee v. StateSearch
-
State v. LeeSearch
-
too, have held that barns, like other rural outbuildings, lie within the curtilage of the farmhouse. See United States v. BerrongSearch
-
quoting United States v. WilliamsSearch
-
Rosencranz v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. SwannSearch
-
United States v. KingSearch
-
not strip a home or any building within the curtilage of Fourth Amendment protection. As-this Court said in Taylor v. UnitedSearch
-
as garages, barns, sheds, smokehouses) because such buildings are commonly deemed within the curtilage. See Gumina v. StateSearch
-
Barton v. StateSearch
-
Bellamy v. StateSearch
-
Meek v. PierceSearch
-
It is well established that the Fourth Amendment protects a privacy interest in commercial premises. See Oliver v. UnitedSearch
-
Since Page 480 U. S. 316 Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
Smith v. MarylandSearch
-
the individual must exhibit a subjective expectation of privacy in the object of the challenged search. See Smith v. MarylandSearch
-
See Norman v. StateSearch
-
and unprotected commercial premises (to which the public has access) in its analysis last Term in Dow Chemical Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. DunnSearch
-
of Oliver v. UnitedSearch
-
of the Fourth Amendment. Hester v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial