shut off and a car door opening without necessarily seeing where the car parked. Furthermore, at the Franks hearing, both Hanson and Humboldt County Deputy Mark Peterson confirmed the accuracy of the statement in Hanson’s affidavit. Oct. 14, 2004 at 48, 102, 114. Accordingly, in the absence of any persuasive evidence to the contrary, the court finds Hanson’s testimo th Cir.1995) (200 feet is outside of the curtilage); United States v. Brady, 993 F.2d 177, 178 (9th Cir.1993) (45 feet is outside of the curtilage); United States v. Traynor, 990 F.2d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir.1993) (70 to 75 feet is outside of the curti-lage); United States v. Calabrese, 825 F.2d 1342, 1350 (9th Cir.1987) (50 feet is outside of the curtilage). But cf. United States v. Furrow, 229 F.3d 805, 817 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Depew, 8 F.3d at 1427 (distance of 50 to 60
holding that trial court did not err holding that a trial court did not clearly err in finding that an attorney fees clause materially altered a contract holding that the district court to not clearly err in finding that a distance of 100 feet is within the curtilage holding that superior court did not clearly err in finding that the parent had not remedied the problematic conduct holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record