use to which the property was put coincided in Dunn, it would be inappropriate to assume that the Court meant to modify the actual use test when it spoke of the officers’ knowledge. Still, if we examine “use” with reference to the objective knowledge that the officers had when they searched Reilly’s land, the result would be the same. Looking at the situation on Reilly’s property from the standpoint of the officers’ objective knowledge, we believe that reasonable officers would expect that the cottage was likely to be used for private activities. The district court found that the cottage area “appears to have been better maintained than the lawn area between the main residence and Woodard Road.” 875 F.Supp. at 118. Relying on United States v. Sumner, 793 F.Supp. 273, 275 (D.Kan.1992) (<HOLDING>), the court below found that Reilly had made
holding that only the manicured area of approximately four or five acres on a 240 acre property constitutes the curtilage holding that the fiveacre limitation on exemption for church property did not violate churchs constitutional protections of religious freedom where zoning ordinance required lot size in excess of five acres which resulted in partial taxation of church property holding that a warrantless search of garbage located within the curtilage of the defendants home violated his fourth amendment rights holding that for purposes of aerial surveillance using sophisticated equipment the open areas of an industrial or business complex are not analogous to the curtilage of a dwelling but falls somewhere between open fields and curtilage holding that since all of the buildings at 8670 jennings drive were within the curtilage of the property there was no need to demonstrate probable cause to search each building on the property