{
  "id": 1616732,
  "name": "STATE of Arkansas v. Joe Lawrence CASHION et ux",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Cashion",
  "decision_date": "1976-07-06",
  "docket_number": "CR 76-29",
  "first_page": "148",
  "last_page": "149",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "260 Ark. 148"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "539 S.W.2d 423"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "251 Ark. 164",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1633247
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/251/0164-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "417 F. 2d 1020",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2169285
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/417/1020-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "356 F. 2d 310",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        839336
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/356/0310-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 F. 2d 395",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1086257
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "396"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/125/0395-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "165 F. 2d 752",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1205082
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/165/0752-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "286 U.S. 1",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        3918816
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/286/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 F. 2d 447",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        59100
      ],
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/225/0447-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "249 Ark. 1111",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8725686
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/249/1111-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "249 Ark. 405",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8720437
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/249/0405-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "267 U.S. 132",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6137701
      ],
      "year": 1924,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/267/0132-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "258 Ark. 544",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1621185
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/258/0544-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 271,
    "char_count": 3301,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.873,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.7178559455693396e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3587093301578586
    },
    "sha256": "3168db09f6724a2367f7a0296c1bc7d327c2f2f6b9d0b9db58b411a861d1f5d4",
    "simhash": "1:07b4aac90dbebefa",
    "word_count": 587
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:47:10.616532+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of Arkansas v. Joe Lawrence CASHION et ux"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nThis is an interlocutory appeal by the state pursuant to Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, 16.2 (d) and 36.10 (1975). The trial court held that the description \u201cand curtilage and appurtenances contained in the description of the premises to be searched as stated on the face of the search warrant is of no legal consequence.\u201d The court then \u201cordered that any and all evidence contained in any out building or on any premise other than the residence and the area [a garden] observed by [the officer] be suppressed.\u201d We make it clear that the only issue presented is whether the words \u201cand curtilage and appurtenances\u201d were a sufficient description in a search warrant to allow the search of a chicken house located 20 to 40 feet from the described residence or farmhouse and a hay shed located 300 feet from the house and 25 to 30 feet from a barn described in the search warrant. It appears that no evidence (marijuana) was found in the barn.\nIt is well established that only unreasonable searches and seizures are prohibited by our State (Art. 2, \u00a7 15) and Federal (Fourth Amendment) Constitutions. Wickliffe & Scott v. State, 258 Ark. 544, 527 S.W. 2d 640 (1975); and Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1924). The degree of particularity required of a description in a search warrant is governed by the facts and circumstances of each case. Easley v. State, 249 Ark. 405, 459 S.W. 2d 410 (1970); and Perez v. State, 249 Ark. 1111, 463 S.W. 2d 394 (1971).\nHere the search warrant contained a description of a farmhouse with a red barn and also the additional words \u201cand curtilage and appurtenances.\u201d Pursuant to this description, the officers searched the farmhouse and the other buildings adjacent thereto, all within 300 feet of the described house. In Walker v. U.S., 225 F. 2d 447 (5th Cir. 1955), the court said:\nThe barn here searched was a domestic building constituting an integral part of that group of structures making up the farm home. Every case must be decided upon its own peculiar facts, and we hold that, under the facts here, this barn was a part of the curtilage. In Taylor v. United States, 1931, 286 U.S. 1, 52 S. Ct. 466, 76 L. Ed. 951, the house searched was a metal garage adjacent to the dwelling house; in Robinson v. United States, 6 Cir. 1948, 165 F. 2d 752, the search was a smokehouse; and in Walker v. United States, 5 Cir. 1942, 125 F. 2d 395, 396, the search was of a shed consisting of a chicken house and garage, which stood fifty to sixty feet from the dwelling house; in each instance it was considered that the curtilage was involved.\nSee also Rosencranz v. United States, 356 F. 2d 310 (1st Cir. 1966); United States v. Meyer, 417 F. 2d 1020 (8th Cir. 1969); and 68 Am. Jur. 2d, Searches and Seizures, \u00a7 78. Cf. Durham v. State, 251 Ark. 164, 471 S.W. 2d 527 (1971). In the case at bar we hold the description of the farmhouse, barn, \u201cand curtilage and appurtenances\u201d was sufficient to authorize the officers to search the chicken house and hay shed on the farm.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: B. J. McCoy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.",
      "No brief for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE of Arkansas v. Joe Lawrence CASHION et ux\nCR 76-29\n539 S.W. 2d 423\nOpinion delivered July 6, 1976\n[Rehearing denied September 13, 1976.]\nJim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: B. J. McCoy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.\nNo brief for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0148-01",
  "first_page_order": 176,
  "last_page_order": 177
}