WHITSELL

v.

ALEXANDER ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (17 total)

• Masters v. State, 453 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
  …re and was manifestly used for commercial rather than for family or domestic purposes associated with a dwelling, it cannot be deemed to have been within the “curtilage” of the home. Care v. United States, 231 F. 2d 22 (10th Cir.1956), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 932, 76 S.Ct. 788, 100 L.Ed. 1461 (1956); Phillips v. State, 177 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); 25 C.J.S. Curtilage p. 81 (1966); see Oliver v. United States, — U.S. -, -, n. 12, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 1743, n. 12, 80 L.Ed.2d 214, 226, n. 12 (defining curtila…
• Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (U.S. 1984)
  …a immediately adjacent to the home will remain private. See, e. g., United States v. Van Dyke, 643 F. 2d 992, 993-994 (CA4 1981); United States v. Williams, 581 F. 2d 451, 453 (CA5 1978); Care v. United States, 231 F. 2d 22, 25 (CA10), cert. denied, 351 U. S. 932 (1956). Conversely, the common law implies, as we reaffirm today, that no expectation of privacy legitimately attaches to open fields.11 [*181] We conclude, from the text of the Fourth Amendment and from the historical and contemporary understandi…
• California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (U.S. 1986)
  …a immediately adjacent to the home will remain private. See, e. g., United States v. Van Dyke, 643 F. 2d 992, 993-994 (CA4 1981); United States v. Williams, 581 F. 2d 451, 453 (CA5 1978); Care v. United States, 231 F. 2d 22, 25 (CA10), cert. denied, 351 U. S. 932 (1956).” Oliver v. United States, supra, at 180. The lower federal courts have agreed that the curtilage is “an area of domestic use immediately surrounding a dwelling and usually but not always fenced in with the dwelling.”6 United States v. LaBerg…