Carroll v. Cuyahoga Community College

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in an area in part because he “did little to protect” that area
• concluding that the fact that a second fence enclosed only the house weighed against finding the barn was within the curtilage of the house
• concluding that observation of objects protected by the Fourth Amendment from a vantage point in the open fields does not violate the Fourth Amendment
• holding that no constitutional violation occurred when officers crossed open fields but did not enter any structure
• holding that officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment by standing in “open fields” to observe illegal activity located inside a barn
• holding that as long as officers were “standing ... in the open fields, the Constitution did not forbid [the officers] to observe” the area assumed to be curti-lage

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).