Cases citing this passage

may, in good faith, move away from the front door when seeking to contact the occupants.

Cited 3 times across 3 cases.

Timeline. First cited 2005 · peak 2006 (2 pins) · last 2006 · spans 2 years · 100% of all citations are from the last 5 years · growing

Related passages — frequently cited in the same opinions as this one

co-cited 3× n individual does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to things or activities within a residence that may be observed by persons using their natural senses from places impliedly …

co-cited 3× ourts must consider all surrounding circumstances, including the existence of a fence, to determine the residents' intent.

co-cited 3× policeman's mere observation from a vantage point that does not infringe upon a privacy interest, of something open to public view, normally implicates no fourth amendment constraints because observa…

co-cited 3× a homeowner can abrogate the presumption of implied consent to approach the front door by undertaking sufficient steps to exclude casual visitors from the front yard.

co-cited 3× consistent with the common law understanding of the extent of the 'home,' the supreme court has held that the fourth amendment protections that apply to the house also apply to the 'curtilage' of the…

co-cited 3× e review de novo the trial court's application of defined legal standards such as whether a defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy sufficient to permit him to raise a fourth amendment chal…

co-cited 3× he use of a flashlight to assist the natural vision at night does not make an 'observation' a 'search.

co-cited 3× if a law enforcement officer or agent does not go beyond the area of the residence that is impliedly open to the public, such as the driveway, the walkway, or an access route leading to the residence…

Elisa Kenty Robinson v. Commonwealth · 2006-01-31 · Court of Appeals of Virginia

George Fisher Robinson v. Commonwealth · 2006-01-31 · Court of Appeals of Virginia

Robinson v. Commonwealth · 2005-05-17 · Court of Appeals of Virginia