an area between the house and an unattached garage. However, the district court specifically found that this camera was positioned looking over a half-solid, half-lattice array, “to a location where the public could easily see from another vantage point.” With respect to the Strieker Avenue location, the district court found the pole camera observed a driveway that was open and accessible to public view. Finally, the district court found that the pole camera outside the Sherwood Avenue warehouse viewed a common yard between buildings that was “open to many directions and surrounded by roads and alleyways” and had no obstructions that would prevent someone from observing the defendants. “comings and goings.” See, e.g., United States v. Wymer, 654 Fed.Appx. 735, 743-44 (6th Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 830, —
holding warrantless search of probationers home by law enforcement officer for investigatory purposes was reasonable when conditions of probation included a search term and search was supported by reasonable suspicion holding that injury to business or property was not limited to commercial interests holding warrantless surveillance of commercial property from utilitypole cameras that recorded for five months was not a search holding a warrantless search of cell phone contents did not exceed permissible scope of search incident to arrest holding lease of property was a commercial transaction where the property was for commercial ranching but a residence was maintained on the property