United States v. Ronald Dale Dunn
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Dale DUNN, Defendant-Appellant
Subsequent history: rev'd, United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987). (read from the later opinion; check before relying)
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
Upon first consideration of this appeal we reversed the convictions of Ronald Dale Dunn finding, inter alia, that a barn which was the subject of a warrantless search was within the protected curtilage of the Dunn ranch house.
United States v. Dunn, 674 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir.1982). The Supreme Court granted the government’s petition for writ of certiorari, United States v. Dunn, 467 U.S. 1201 , 104 S.Ct. 2380 , 81 L.Ed.2d 340 (1984), and vacated our disposition of Dunn’s appeal, remanding “for further consideration in light of Oliver v. United States,”
466 U.S. 170 , 104 S.Ct. 1735 , 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984). On remand we held that the barn in question was not within the curtilage, United States v. Dunn, 766 F.2d 880 (5th Cir.1985). By an Order dated January 17, 1986, 781 F.2d 52 , we vacated that opinion and returned the matter to the panel.
Upon further collegial consideration of the mandate of the Supreme Court in the course of the disposition of the government’s petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc, we have determined that the holding and teachings of Oliver v. United States neither direct nor require that the subject barn be found to be outside the curtilage of the Dunn ranch house. We again have examined painstakingly the facts reflected in this record, as set forth in detail in our two prior panel opinions, against the backdrop of Oliver v. United States and other decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court. To reflect the relative positions of the buildings and improvements, we attach a site plat of the ranch house enclave which was filed in evidence as a government exhibit. Upon studied reflection, we now conclude and hold that the barn was inside the protected curtilage.
Accordingly, we reinstate the opinion rendered on May 7, 1982, reported at 674 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir.1982), as our disposition of this appeal by Ronald Dale Dunn.
PRIOR OPINION REINSTATED.
*1228
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.