Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The open-fields doctrine (also open-field doctrine or open-fields rule), in the U.S. law of criminal procedure, is the legal doctrine that a "warrantless search of the area outside a property owner's curtilage" does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, "unless there is some other legal basis for the ...
The officer must be lawfully present where he or she sees the item. For example, an officer may not enter a suspect's home without a warrant and rely on the plain view doctrine. However, if an officer is inside a suspect's home under an unrelated warrant, he or she may rely on the plain view doctrine, subject to the doctrine's other ...
Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (1924), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which established the open-fields doctrine. [1] 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, houses, papers and effects', is not extended to the open fields."
Federal agents are allowed to search private property without a warrant under this Prohibition-era Supreme Court precedent.
Id at 178. The Court also cited practical considerations as weighing on its decision, since open fields "usually are accessible to the public," and "no trespassing" signs are generally ineffective at "bar[ring] the public from viewing open fields in rural areas," and "the public and police lawfully may survey lands from the air." Id at 178-179.
The first part of the test is related to the notion "in plain view". If a person did not undertake reasonable efforts to conceal something from a casual observer (as opposed to a snoop), then no subjective expectation of privacy is assumed.
While the decision is great news for Tennesseans, it's only the first step in reclaiming Americans' property rights against the open fields doctrine.
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the Fourth Amendment and the automobile exception.. The state sought to justify the search of a car owned by Edward Coolidge, suspected of killing 14-year-old Pamela Mason in January 1964, on three theories: automobile exception, search incident to arrest and plain view.