Curtilage

In law, the curtilage of a house or dwelling is the land immediately surrounding it, including any closely associated buildings and structures, but excluding any associated 'open fields beyond', and also excluding any closely associated buildings, structures, or divisions that contain the separate intimate activities of their own respective occupants with those occupying residents being persons other than those residents of the house or dwelling of which the building is associated. It delineates the boundary within which a home owner can have a reasonable expectation of privacy and where 'intimate home activities' take place. It is an important legal concept in certain jurisdictions for the understanding of search and seizure, conveyancing of real property, burglary, trespass, and land use planning.The enclosed space of ground and buildings immediately surrounding a dwelling-house. In its most comprehensive and proper legal signification, it includes all that space of ground and buildings thereon which is usually enclosed within the general fence immediately surrounding a principal messuage and outbuildings, and yard closely adjoining to a dwelling-house, but it may be large enough for cattle to be levant and couchant therein.We therefore regard the area 'immediately surrounding and associated with the home'—what our cases call the curtilage—as 'part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.' ... That principle has ancient and durable roots. Just as the distinction between the home and the open fields is 'as old as the common law,' ... so too is the identity of home and what Blackstone called the 'curtilage or homestall,' for the 'house protects and privileges all its branches and appurtenants.' ... This area around the home is 'intimately linked to the home, both physically and psychologically,' and is where 'privacy expectations are most heightened.' In law, the curtilage of a house or dwelling is the land immediately surrounding it, including any closely associated buildings and structures, but excluding any associated 'open fields beyond', and also excluding any closely associated buildings, structures, or divisions that contain the separate intimate activities of their own respective occupants with those occupying residents being persons other than those residents of the house or dwelling of which the building is associated. It delineates the boundary within which a home owner can have a reasonable expectation of privacy and where 'intimate home activities' take place. It is an important legal concept in certain jurisdictions for the understanding of search and seizure, conveyancing of real property, burglary, trespass, and land use planning. In urban properties, the location of the curtilage may be evident from the position of fences, wall and similar; within larger properties it may be a matter of some legal debate as to where the private area ends and the 'open fields' start. The word derives from Middle English: courtelage; Old French: cortillage or cortil ('court, yard, garden'); cort (court) + -il (diminutive suffix) + -age (-age). At common law, which derives from English law, curtilage has been defined as 'the open space situated within a common enclosure belonging to a dwelling-house.' Black's Law Dictionary of 1891 defined it as: Where American homes are generally less likely than their English counterparts to include fenced or walled enclosures, the courts have not strictly held to such a requirement. In practice, determining the boundaries of curtilage has proven to be imprecise and subject to controversy. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, an area immediately surrounding a house or dwelling is curtilage if it harbors the 'intimate activity associated with the 'sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life.'' In United States v. Dunn (1987), the Court provided guidance, saying that, 'curtilage questions should be resolved with particular reference to four factors: the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by.' In Florida v. Jardines (2013), the Court held, in a 5-4 decision by Justice Antonin Scalia, that the curtilage may not be used by a police dog to sniff for marijuana: In Collins v. Virginia (2018), the Court ruled that motor vehicles parked within the curtilage do not qualify for the motor vehicle exception for a warrantless reasonable search.