Court Opinion

ID: 9580476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:05:17.216446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:18.076644
License: Public Domain

Carley, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
I agree that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in that there was no error in the denial of appellant’s motion to suppress. However, I cannot agree with Division 2 to the extent that it belabors the issue as to whether the greenhouse was within or without the curtilage. Plainly and simply, this case is controlled by the plurality opinion in Florida v. Riley, 488 U. S. 445 (109 SC 693, 102 LE2d 835) (1989).
*535Decided March 4, 1992
Reconsideration denied March 24, 1992
Maloy & Jenkins, W. Bruce Maloy, for appellant.
Garry T. Moss, District Attorney, Gregory A. Hicks, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.