Oliver v. United States case brief

Oliver v. United States case brief summary

This case deals with the Open Fields Doctrine.  This doctrine permits police to enter and search a field without a warrant

Facts of this case:

•The police were investigating marijuana growth and went past a gate with a no trespassing sign and found a field of weed. They found that the weed was on the property and then obtained a warrant to search and seize.

•They were trespassing on his property

The difference from Olmsted existed here because they were not trespassing on his property 

The trial court: The search was unreasonable because it was warrantless

Hester v. US: protection of 4^th amendment does not extend to open fields 

REAFFIRMED: An individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of the doors in fields, except in area immediately surrounding the home 

Fields are not intimate activities that the 4th Amendment is designed to protect 

Curtilage: area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the “sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life” 

Case by case analysis won’t work because the police will be guessing in every situation 

Trespass law

Even a property interest may not be sufficient to establish a legit expectation of privacy 

Trespass forbids intrusion on land the 4^th am. would not prescribe.

Was there a search or seizure?

No.  Because one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an open field- it is NOT a search 

•Justice black is laughing because he predicted the privacy standard is messy 

This case is different from Katz where they focused on the person. 

Here, fields are not listed in the 4^th am. PPHE.

DISSENT

We have always looked to see if the person protection claim is justifiable reasonable or a legitimate expectation of privacy 

A telephone booth is outside of one’s curtilage but was protected

Property owners have the right to exclude

The fact that they desired to exclude, no trespass sign, strengthens their claim