United States of America, Cross-Appellant v. Charles D. Pace, Cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that officers were “privileged to view the inside of a barn” because they were “standing in open fields,” and it was “of no consequence” that they needed to “press their faces” up to a “small opening” to see inside
• noting that nexus between evidence sought and location to be searched \may be established `through normal inferences as to where the articles sought would be located'\ (quoting United States v. Freeman, 685 F.2d 942, 949 (5th Cir. 1982))
• concluding barn did not qualify as curtilage or “business curtilage”
• “concealment of the business records of a drug operation at home certainly is a reasonable inference when a search of the situs of the operation yields no records”
• Where agent stated in affidavit that individuals who cultivate marijuana routinely conceal evidence of the crime in their homes, court held: 25 The government sought to obtain two basic types of items from Laury's residence: (1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).