holding that a *462 garden from which a marijuana bud was seized was within the curtilage of the defendant’s property because it was within ten yards of the home, within a tree boundary, and was used for laundry and vegetable gardening and that curtilage is automatically entitled to Fourth Amendment protection
How later courts described this case
- holding that a *462 garden from which a marijuana bud was seized was within the curtilage of the defendant’s property because it was within ten yards of the home, within a tree boundary, and was used for laundry and vegetable gardening and that curtilage is automatically entitled to Fourth Amendment protection
- holding that a garden from which a marijuana bud was seized was within the curtilage of the defendant's property because it was within ten yards of the home, within a tree boundary, and was used for laundry and vegetable gardening and that curtilage is automatically entitled to Fourth Amendment protection
- permitting aerial observation of marijuana within defendant’s curtilage using “standard binoculars and cameras equipped with generally available standard and zoom lenses” so long as “overflights were not rare and the pilot was within navigable airspace specified by law”
- remanding for determination whether officer would have sought a warrant without the illegal search and seizure
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LaROCQUE, J.
(dissenting). I dissent. The Murray decision has no application here. Murray deals with the police failure to mention to the issuing magistrate *629 the fact of their illegal forced entry into the subject warehouse where they observed hundreds of bales of marijuana. This case is controlled by Karo. That case also involved an illegal pre-warrant police search, but those facts were presented to the magistrate in the search warrant affidavit. Karo holds that if sufficient untainted evidence is included in the application for a search warrant, the warrant is valid. The majority here notes that Murray makes no mention of Karo, yet, if the facts here are controlled by Murray, then Karo is overruled. I believe that Murray does not mention Karo, decided only four years earlier, because the cases deal with different circumstances.
I would reverse the order suppressing the evidence based upon the conclusion reached by both the trial court and this court that there was sufficient evidence to support a search warrant without the clipped marijuana bud.