Acting on a tip, Texas investigators, entered onto the defendant's property in Travis County and peeked through a hole in a barn where they discovered marijuana being cultivated. With this information the officers gained a search warrant, which they used to search the property. The defendant was eventually arrested, tried and convicted for possession with intent to distribute. The defendant challenged on Fourth Amendment grounds, claiming that the barn was inside the "curtilage" of his home. The court found that it was not and that the search was legal pursuant to the "open fields" doctrine. The court held that the search was constitutional and that the barn was not within the curtilage of the appellant's home because the barn was located a significant distance from the house, was separated from the house by an interior fence, was not being used for activities associated with the intimacies of home life, and was readily visible from the surrounding area.[1]
Referencesedit
^ abUnited States v. Pace, 955 F.2d 270 (5th Cir. 1992).
External linksedit
Text of United States v. Pace, 955 F.2d 270 (5th Cir.) is available from:CourtListenerJustiaOpenJuristGoogle ScholarCaseText
This article relating to case law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
united, states, pace, 1992, cert, denied, 1992, united, states, court, appeals, fifth, circuit, court, decision, relating, open, fields, doctrine, limiting, scope, fourth, amendment, constitution, courtunited, states, court, appeals, fifth, circuitfull, case, . United States v Pace 955 F 2d 270 5th Cir 1992 1 cert denied 502 U S 883 1992 is a United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit court decision relating to the open fields doctrine limiting the scope of the Fourth Amendment of the U S Constitution United States v PaceCourtUnited States Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitFull case nameUnited States of America v Charles D PaceDecidedFebruary 24 1992Citation s 955 F 2d 270Case historySubsequent historyCert denied 502 U S 883 1992 Court membershipJudge s sittingHenry Anthony Politz Carolyn Dineen King Samuel D Johnson Jr Case opinionsMajorityKing joined by a unanimous courtLaws appliedU S Const amend IVActing on a tip Texas investigators entered onto the defendant s property in Travis County and peeked through a hole in a barn where they discovered marijuana being cultivated With this information the officers gained a search warrant which they used to search the property The defendant was eventually arrested tried and convicted for possession with intent to distribute The defendant challenged on Fourth Amendment grounds claiming that the barn was inside the curtilage of his home The court found that it was not and that the search was legal pursuant to the open fields doctrine The court held that the search was constitutional and that the barn was not within the curtilage of the appellant s home because the barn was located a significant distance from the house was separated from the house by an interior fence was not being used for activities associated with the intimacies of home life and was readily visible from the surrounding area 1 References edit a b United States v Pace 955 F 2d 270 5th Cir 1992 External links editText of United States v Pace 955 F 2d 270 5th Cir is available from CourtListener Justia OpenJurist Google Scholar CaseText nbsp This article relating to case law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title United States v Pace amp oldid 1175151838, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
