identified the property in question, both from the overall description and from their prior knowledge, and there was no probability that any other property would be mistakenly searched. Therefore, the warrant adequately described the places to be searched. I.. Did the officers exceed the scope of the search warrant? The defendants argue that the warrant did not include the shop behind Mr. Jerry Biles’s house and that the shop was not within the curtilage of the residence. Generally, “a warrant for the search of a specified residence or premises authorizes the search of auxiliary and outbuildings within the curtilage.” United States v. Watkins, 179 F.3d 489, 505 (6th Cir.1999) (Boggs, J., concurring) (collecting cases); see also United States v. Campbell, 256 F.3d 381 (6th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Alexander, 761 F.2d 1294,
holding that a warrantless search of garbage located within the curtilage of the defendants home violated his fourth amendment rights 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 holding that probable cause to believe certain individuals were members of a conspiracy did not give probable cause to search the contents of the room in which they were arrested holding that the officers examination revealed that there was probable cause to believe that the property was stolen holding that a defendant has no constitutional right to challenge the search or seizure of property belonging to a third party even if the search was without probable cause