Open fields doctrine
Encyclopedia
The open fields doctrine is a U.S. legal doctrine
created judicially for purposes of evaluating claims of an unreasonable search by the government in violation of the Fourth Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
The open fields doctrine was first articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hester v. United States
, which stated that “the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their ‘persons, houses, papers, and effects,’ is not extended to the open fields." This opinion appears to be decided on the basis that "open fields are not a "constitutionally protected area" because they cannot be construed as "persons, houses, papers, [or] effects."
This method of reasoning gave way with the arrival of the landmark case Katz v. U.S., which established a two-part test for what constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The relevant criteria are "first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy
and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable'." Under this new analysis of the Fourth Amendment, a search of an object or area where a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy is, in a legal sense, not a search at all. That search, therefore, does not trigger the protections of the Fourth Amendment.
In Oliver v. United States
, the Supreme Court held that a privacy expectation regarding an open field is unreasonable:
Courts have continuously held that entry into an open field—whether trespass
or not—is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. No matter what steps a person takes, he or she cannot create a reasonable privacy expectation in an open field, because it is an area incapable of supporting an expectation of privacy as a matter of constitutional law. In situations where the police allege that what was searched was an open field, this has the practical effect of shifting the argument from whether any given expectation of privacy is reasonable, to whether the given place is actually an open field or some other type of area like curtilage
. This is because a person can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in areas classed as such.
, or outdoor area immediately surrounding the home, may be protected. Courts have treated this area as an extension of the house and as such subject to all the privacy protections afforded a person’s home (unlike a person's open fields) under the Fourth Amendment.
An area is curtilage if it "harbors the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." Courts make this determination by examining "the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by." Theoretically, many structures might extend the curtilage protection to the areas immediately surrounding them. The courts have gone so far as to treat a tent as a home for Fourth Amendment purposes in the past. (Note: these are 9th Circuit Court of Appeals cases and would not be binding authority in many, if not most, cases.) It is possible that the area immediately surrounding a tent (or any structure used as a home) might be considered curtilage.
Despite this rather broad interpretation of curtilage, the courts seem willing to find areas to be outside of the curtilage if they are in any way separate from the home (by a fence, great distance, other structures, even certain plants).
Doctrine
Doctrine is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system...
created judicially for purposes of evaluating claims of an unreasonable search by the government in violation of the Fourth Amendment
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause...
of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no WarrantsWarrant (law)Most often, the term warrant refers to a specific type of authorization; a writ issued by a competent officer, usually a judge or magistrate, which permits an otherwise illegal act that would violate individual rights and affords the person executing the writ protection from damages if the act is...
shall issue, but upon probable causeProbable causeIn United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which an officer or agent of the law has the grounds to make an arrest, to conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest, etc. when criminal charges are being considered. It is also used to refer to the...
, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The open fields doctrine was first articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hester v. United States
Hester v. United States
Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which established the open fields doctrine. In an opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the court held that "the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their 'persons,...
, which stated that “the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their ‘persons, houses, papers, and effects,’ is not extended to the open fields." This opinion appears to be decided on the basis that "open fields are not a "constitutionally protected area" because they cannot be construed as "persons, houses, papers, [or] effects."
This method of reasoning gave way with the arrival of the landmark case Katz v. U.S., which established a two-part test for what constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The relevant criteria are "first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy
Expectation of privacy
In United States constitutional law the expectation of privacy is a legal test which is crucial in defining the scope of the applicability of the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution...
and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable'." Under this new analysis of the Fourth Amendment, a search of an object or area where a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy is, in a legal sense, not a search at all. That search, therefore, does not trigger the protections of the Fourth Amendment.
In Oliver v. United States
Oliver v. United States
Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 , is a United States Supreme Court decision relating to the open fields doctrine limiting the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution....
, the Supreme Court held that a privacy expectation regarding an open field is unreasonable:
…open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance. There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops, that occur in open fields.
Courts have continuously held that entry into an open field—whether trespass
Trespass
Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels and trespass to land.Trespass to the person, historically involved six separate trespasses: threats, assault, battery, wounding, mayhem, and maiming...
or not—is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. No matter what steps a person takes, he or she cannot create a reasonable privacy expectation in an open field, because it is an area incapable of supporting an expectation of privacy as a matter of constitutional law. In situations where the police allege that what was searched was an open field, this has the practical effect of shifting the argument from whether any given expectation of privacy is reasonable, to whether the given place is actually an open field or some other type of area like curtilage
Curtilage
The curtilage is an important legal term to define the land immediately surrounding a house or dwelling, including any closely associated buildings and structures, but excluding any associated 'open fields beyond'. It defines the boundary within which a home owner can have a reasonable expectation...
. This is because a person can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in areas classed as such.
Distinguishing open fields from curtilage
While open fields are not protected by the Fourth Amendment, the curtilageCurtilage
The curtilage is an important legal term to define the land immediately surrounding a house or dwelling, including any closely associated buildings and structures, but excluding any associated 'open fields beyond'. It defines the boundary within which a home owner can have a reasonable expectation...
, or outdoor area immediately surrounding the home, may be protected. Courts have treated this area as an extension of the house and as such subject to all the privacy protections afforded a person’s home (unlike a person's open fields) under the Fourth Amendment.
An area is curtilage if it "harbors the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." Courts make this determination by examining "the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by." Theoretically, many structures might extend the curtilage protection to the areas immediately surrounding them. The courts have gone so far as to treat a tent as a home for Fourth Amendment purposes in the past. (Note: these are 9th Circuit Court of Appeals cases and would not be binding authority in many, if not most, cases.) It is possible that the area immediately surrounding a tent (or any structure used as a home) might be considered curtilage.
Despite this rather broad interpretation of curtilage, the courts seem willing to find areas to be outside of the curtilage if they are in any way separate from the home (by a fence, great distance, other structures, even certain plants).
See also
- United States v. BurtonUnited States v. BurtonUnited States v. Burton is a United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit court decision relating to the open fields doctrine limiting the scope of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S...
, 894 F.2d 188 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 857 (1990) - United States v. PaceUnited States v. PaceUnited States v. Pace is a United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit court decision relating to the open fields doctrine limiting the scope of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S...
, 955 F.2d 270 (5th Cir.), cert. denied¸ 502 U.S. 883 (1992) - Husband v. Bryan, 946 F.2d 27 (5th Cir. 1991)
- United States v. Benish, 5 F.3d 20 (3d Cir. 1993)
- United States v. McKeever, 5 F.3d 863 (5th Cir. 1993)
- United States v. Brady, 993 F.2d 177 (9th Cir. 1993)
- United States v. Depew, 8 F.3d 424 (9th Cir. 1993)
- United States v. Reilly, 76 F.3d 1271 (2d Cir. 1996)
- United States v. Gooch, 6 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 1993)