In law, curtilage is the enclosed area of land around a dwelling.[1] It is distinct from the dwelling by virtue of lacking a roof, but distinct from the area outside the enclosure in that it is enclosed within a wall or barrier of some sort.

It is typically treated as being legally coupled with the dwelling it surrounds despite the fact that it might commonly be considered “outdoors”.

This distinction is important under US law for cases dealing with burglary and with self defense under the Castle Doctrine. Under Florida law, burglary encompasses the English common-law definition and adds (among other things) curtilage to the protected area of the dwelling into which intrusion is prohibited. Similarly, a homeowner does not have to retreat within the curtilage under Florida’s Castle Doctrine.

The curtilage (like the home) provides a reasonable expectation of privacy and hence (in the US) is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. See Open fields doctrine for how courts distinguish curtilage and “open fields”, with the latter not providing privacy.

NOW FOR YOU LEGAL GURUS OUT THERE, LET ME TURN UP THE VOLUME SO YOU CLEARLY UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS JUST SAID: THE CURTILAGE (LIKE THE HOME) PROVIDES A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY AND HENCE (IN THE US) IS PROTECTED FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE US CONSTITUTION.

You guys are truly pathetic. I am actually amazed out how inane and baseless your arguments are. No one has dealth with Judge Napolitano’s conclusion from Faux News. TAKE ON JUDGE NAPOLITANO’S CONCLUSION, PLEASE. IS ANY OUT THERE SMART ENOUGH TO DO THIS? I DIDN’T THINK SO.

Iris- You claim to have done your homework. It is probably not the smartest thing to portray oneself as an expert on a given subject unless you know ALL aspects of it. You throw out large, broadsword style comments about the 4th amendment. So far, it seems you have overlooked another important part of Sgt. Crowley’s job- Massachusetts General Laws. Let me give you a few things to ponder, and I’ll let you come up with another ill-tempered and uneducated response.

1. Probable Cause- N. Facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable and prudent officer to believe that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed; and that the person at hand is responsible.
-This is one of the things that police officers base their investigations on. They had probable cause to believe that someone was breaking into a house. They are sworn (Trust me, if it was your house and it was an actual burglar, you would want them to) to investigate the incident until it is proven that there is no crime being committed. This is why Crowley and other officers went to the house, were on the porch, etc. They had every right to enter the porch and the dwelling (Since entry had been made by one of the involved parties) to identify the subjects and stop any criminal behavior. Would you rather have them arrive, see that entry had been made, and then turn around and leave because they didn’t want to violate Iris Bettencourt’s skewed interpretation of search and seizure laws? No- If it was your house and it was a real burglar, you would want the police to go in and get them. But all was well, because the men inside were the homeowner and his driver. So at this point, Gates should have thanked the officers for doing their job, checking to be sure that his property was ok, and then said goodnight. We all know he didn’t do that.

2-Curtillage- I’ll let you look that one up. What you’ll find is that areas like a driveway, front lawn, porch, etc. are not considered part of your dwelling in certain circumstances. You seem to have a big problem with the fact that Gates was arrested on his front porch. Well, the police were lawfully there- they had just finished investigating the B&E incident. I suppose you would rather the police just stand out on the street and try to call out to any intruders and ask them to walk right out to the street so they can be placed under arrest? Criminals just don’t seem to do that sort of thing, go figure.

3- Try reading the MGL elements for disorderly conduct. What you will find are phrases like ‘recklessly creating a physically hazardous or offensive condition… for not legitimate purpose of the actor…’ etc. What you will not find, however, is a requirement that this occur on a public way, public place, etc. Hate to break it to you and Dr. Gates who seem to be the only two people who believe you can yell, scream, swear, etc. at a police officer while upsetting and annoying your neighbors on your front porch and not get arrested… but yes, this is arrestable. And justified. And legal.

I’m pretty sure someone already threw this one out there, but would you (And Dr. Gates) be this upset if Sgt. Crowley was black?

Ok, go ahead, call me names and come up with another set of uneducated arguments… I’ll wait

Piestewa Peak (formerly Squaw Peak), at 2608 feet (795 meters) is the second highest point in the Phoenix Mountains, after Camelback Mountain, and the third highest in the city of Phoenix, Arizona. It is located in the Phoenix Mountains Preserve. Piestewa Peak is named in honor of Army Spc. Lori Ann Piestewa, the first Native American woman to die in combat in the US military, [1] and the first woman soldier to be killed in action in the 2003 Iraq Conflict.[2] Piestewa was born in Tuba City, Arizona on December 14, 1979. She was killed in Iraq on March 23, 2003, after the convoy in which she was driving was ambushed in Nasiriyah, Iraq after making a wrong turn.[3] The geological feature had been officially known as Squaw Peak until it was renamed by Governor Janet Napolitano.[4] Ultimately the name change was officially if unceremoniously [5] approved at the federal level on April 10, 2008 by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names.[6][7]

Piestewa Peak has been designated as a Phoenix Point of Pride

THE POLICE REPORT IS FABRICATED.

1. WHY DID THE POLICE REPORT SAY THAT PROFESSOR GATES WAS DISORDERLY IN A PUBLIC PLACE? WHEN EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THE INCIDENT HAPPEN AT HIS PRIVATE RESIDENCE?

2. WHY DID THE POLICE REPORT SAY THAT OFFICER CROWLEY TALKED TO THE WHALEN WOMAN AND SHE SAID THERE WERE TWO LARGE BLACK MEN BREAKING INTO THE HOME? WHALEN’S STATEMENT WAS RELEASED AND SHE SAID SHE NEVER SAID THERE WERE TWO LARGE BLACK MEN IN HER 911 CALL OR ANY OTHER TIME.

3. WHY DID OFFICER CROWLEY SAY THAT HE TALKED TO THE CALLER (WHALEN) IN PERSON AT THE SCENE OF THE INCIDENT WHEN SHE STATED IN A STATEMENT SHE HAD NOT TALKED TO HIM?

THE ABOVE VIDEO BY THE BLACK OFFICERS MEANS NO MORE THAN A STATEMENT ISSUED BY CLARENCE THOMAS.

IF OFFICER CROWLEY WAS TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT THE INCIDENT THAT OCCURED, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NEED TO LIE IN THE POLICE REPORT.

IN AN INTERVIEW WITH PROFESSOR GATES, HE STATED THAT THE POLICE REPORT IS FULL OF LIES. BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN RELEASED, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE POLICE REPORT IS INDEED FULL OF LIES.

IF OFFICER CROWLEY HAD TAKEN OR TAUGHT RACIAL PROFILING COURSES WHY DIDN’T HE JUST LEAVE THE RESIDENCE AFTER THE TWO FORMS OF IDENTIFICATION WERE COMPLIED WITH?

WHY DID OFFICER CROWLEY MAKE A CALL FOR BACK UP AND SAY KEEP THE CARS COMING?….WHEN THERE WAS NO INDICATION WHAT SO EVER THAT PROFESSOR GATES WAS MAKING ANY THREATS TO OFFICER CROWLEY?

KEEP THE CARS COMING….HOW MANY CARS DOES IT TAKE TO ARREST A MAN OVER 50 WITH A CANE AT HIS OWN HOME WHO JUST CAME BACK TO TOWN FROM A FLIGHT OVERSEAS?

WHEN PROFESSOR GATES EXITED HIS HOME HE SAID THERE WERE A SEA OF POLICE CARS. WHY WOULD AN OFFICER WHO HAS HAD RACIAL PROFILING COURSES INSIST ON HAVING A SEA OF OFFICERS OUTSIDE OF PROFESSOR GATES RESIDENCE CAUSING A SCENE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BASED ON THE FACT THAT PROFESSOR GATES WAS ASKING CROWLEY TO IDENTIFY HIMSELF?

I BELIEVE CROWLEY WAS ACTING LIKE THE ROGUE COP THAT PROFESSOR GATES SAID HE WAS. ONCE IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT PROFESSOR GATES WAS INDEED A PROFESSOR AT HARVARD WHO RESIDED IN THE RESIDENCE AND WHO RECOGNIZED CROWLEY’S BEHAVIOR WAS LESS THAN PROFESSIONAL AND PROFESSOR GATES QUESTIONED IT, CROWLEY HAD TO FIND A WAY TO SHIFT THE FACTS. PROFESSOR GATES ASKED FOR CROWLEY’S NAME AND BADGE NUMBER AND CROWLEY REFUSED. WHY? CROWLEY HAD RACIAL PROFILING TRAINING WHY NOT GIVE THE REQUESTED INFORMATION TO THE MAN YOU ARE QUESTIONING?

CROWLEY HAD TO THINK FAST, BECAUSE HE WAS AWARE THAT PROFESSOR GATES WAS GOING TO REPORT HIM FOR HIS ACTIONS. THIS IS WHY CROWLEY TRUMPED UP THE CHARGES OF PROFESSOR GATES BEING DISORDERLY AND WHY THE POLICE REPORT IS FULL OF LIES.

BASED ON READING THE POLICE REPORT, STATEMENTS BY CROWLEY, GATES AND WHALEN. IT IS EVIDENT THAT CROWLEY IS NOT CREDIBLE. PROFESSOR GATES TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT THE INCIDENT.

AND WHY ARE THE CAMBRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS THE POLICE UNION BACKING AN OFFICER’S REPORT THAT HAS LIES IN IT?

Now excuse me, I have to clean my gun and keep a vigilant watch for any black person that might wander onto my block. Of course, I’ll shoot them dead in a New York minute. They’re obviously a criminal.

I want to thank you for your outstanding response to my theories. They were well thought out and good attempts at civil discussion as well as good attempts to discern my various cultural identities. So thanks to you, or your perscriptions, you’ve contributed the valuables.

I thought you asked a good question, “what are conservatives trying to conserve?” Are we conserving old fashioned values? Conserving money? Conserving our freedoms so that we don’t abuse them? Conserving the foundation and heritage of our nation? Conserving ammunition? Or is it a term that runs in the other direction of “progressivism?”

What are progressives progressing toward? Utopia? Forced equality? Government control of everything? Total freedom without consequence?