The 1st Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures", but the question that arises here is whether whether this also applies to open field excavations. and objects in plain view and whether the Fourth Amendment also provides protection over them. To reaffirm the decision of the courts on this issue, I will relate their decisions in Oliver v. United States (1984) and California v. Greenwood (1988), which directly addresses the question of whether a person can have a reasonable expectation of privacy, as provided by the Fourth Amendment, with respect to objects located in an open field or in plain view. The distinction between open fields and private property must be made before an opinion can be formed on the constitutionality of a warrantless search. of an open field. Oliver v. United States is a case in which police officers, acting on reports from neighbors that a patch of marijuana was being grown on the Oliver farm, entered private property ignoring "No Trespassing" signs and then in an open and isolated area. of the Oliver property without a warrant, discovered the marijuana patch, then arrested Oliver without an arrest warrant. The Maine Judicial Court ruled that the “No Trespassing” signs posted around the Oliver property “demonstrated a reasonable expectation of privacy,” and therefore the court held that the “open fields” doctrine does not was not applicable to the Oliver case. After hearing the case, the Supreme Court argues that the special protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment do not extend to open fields. “Open fields do not provide the setting for the intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to protect from government interference or surveillance. » The court refers to the case of Hester v. United States (1924), which set a precedent for "open field affairs" and interpreted this case to imply that "an individual cannot legitimately demand confidentiality for activities conducted outside in the fields unless in the immediate vicinity of the house. Because the marijuana field was nowhere near Oliver's house and in an open field, regardless of its visibility from public access, the court upheld Oliver v. United States and overturned the case of Thornton v. Maine and, in essence, reaffirmed that

Essay / The 1st Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures", but the question that arises here is whether whether this also applies to open field excavations. and objects in plain view and whether the Fourth Amendment also provides protection over them. To reaffirm the decision of the courts on this issue, I will relate their decisions in Oliver v. United States (1984) and California v. Greenwood (1988), which directly addresses the question of whether a person can have a reasonable expectation of privacy, as provided by the Fourth Amendment, with respect to objects located in an open field or in plain view. The distinction between open fields and private property must be made before an opinion can be formed on the constitutionality of a warrantless search. of an open field. Oliver v. United States is a case in which police officers, acting on reports from neighbors that a patch of marijuana was being grown on the Oliver farm, entered private property ignoring "No Trespassing" signs and then in an open and isolated area. of the Oliver property without a warrant, discovered the marijuana patch, then arrested Oliver without an arrest warrant. The Maine Judicial Court ruled that the “No Trespassing” signs posted around the Oliver property “demonstrated a reasonable expectation of privacy,” and therefore the court held that the “open fields” doctrine does not was not applicable to the Oliver case. After hearing the case, the Supreme Court argues that the special protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment do not extend to open fields. “Open fields do not provide the setting for the intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to protect from government interference or surveillance. » The court refers to the case of Hester v. United States (1924), which set a precedent for "open field affairs" and interpreted this case to imply that "an individual cannot legitimately demand confidentiality for activities conducted outside in the fields unless in the immediate vicinity of the house. Because the marijuana field was nowhere near Oliver's house and in an open field, regardless of its visibility from public access, the court upheld Oliver v. United States and overturned the case of Thornton v. Maine and, in essence, reaffirmed that

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch