Namely, Dumstrey parks his car in the parking garage in order to be free from the elements, including frigid winters. Id. The dissent from the court of appeals characterizes this use as one associated with the "privacies of life." Id. However, to the contrary, courts seem overwhelmingly to hold that parking alone constitutes a use associated with neither an intimate activity of the home nor a privacy of life. See, e.g., Mack v. City of Abilene, 461 F.3d 547 (5th Cir. 2006) (collecting cases and indicating that common parking area is not a use associated with curtilage of home); Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 705 N.E.2d 1110 (Mass. 1999) (noting that regular and intended use for tenant parking does not give rise to curtilage designation); State v. Harnisch, 931 P.2d 1359, 1364 (Nev. 1997) (<HOLDING>), disapproved of on other grounds by State v.
holding the search of defendants home took place within the time designated in the warrant and later examination of computer disks seized did not make the search unconstitutional holding that the observation of evidence in plain view is not a search for purposes of the fourth amendment and does not require a warrant holding that parking in designated parking space open to view does not constitute  intimate activities of the home or the privacies of  life  holding that when a police officer observes something from an area where the officer is lawfully entitled to be anything that is in open view may be observed without having to obtain a search warrant because making such open view observations does not constitute a search in the constitutional sense holding that the oral rendition of an order in open court does not constitute entry of that order