In Oliver v. United States, (1984) 466 U.S. 170, 104 S. Ct. 1735, 1740, 1743, 80 L. Ed. 2d 214, 223, 227, the United States Supreme Court held: "The Fourth Amendment does not protect the merely subjective expectation of privacy, but only those expectations that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable...
...The test of whether an expectation of privacy is legitimate for Fourth Amendment purposes is not whether the individual chooses to conceal assertedly 'private' activity; rather, the correct inquiry is whether the government's intrusion infringes upon the personal and societal values protected by the Fourth Amendment."
In Oliver the Court considered two cases with facts very similar to the case at bar. Regarding Oliver, police received reports that marijuana was being grown on the defendant's farm. Kentucky State Police narcotics agents arrived at the farm, drove past the defendant's house to a locked gate with a "no trespassing" sign, walked around the gate down a footpath, and found a field of marijuana over a mile from the defendant's house. In the companion case the Maine police received a tip that marijuana was being grown in the woods behind the defendant's residence. Police officers entered the woods by a path between the residence and a neighboring house and continued through the woods until they reached two marijuana patches fenced in by chicken wire and "no trespassing" signs.
In both cases the United States Supreme Court cited Hester v. United States, (1924) 265 U.S. 57, 44 S. Ct. 445, 68 L. Ed. 898 in determining the "open fields" doctrine should be applied to ascertain whether the discovery and seizure of the marijuana was valid. In Hester the Supreme Court explained that Fourth Amendment protection is accorded to persons, houses, papers, and effects, but that the government's intrusion upon open fields is not an unreasonable search proscribed by the Fourth Amendment. Hester, 265 U.S. 57, 59, 44 S. Ct. 445, 446, 68 L. Ed. 898, 900.
In light of Hester and Katz the Supreme Court in Oliver held: "As a practical matter these lands usually are accessible to the public and the police in ways that a home, an office, or a commercial structure would not be. It is not generally true that fences or no trespassing signs effectively bar the public from viewing open fields in rural areas . . . . For these reasons, the asserted expectation of privacy in open fields is not an expectation that society recognizes as reasonable." Oliver, U.S., 104 S. Ct. at 1741, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 224-225.
The common law distinguished open fields from the curtilage, the area immediately surrounding the home, affording Fourth Amendment protection only to the curtilage, not neighboring open fields. Hester, 265 U.S. at 58, 44 S. Ct. at 446, 68 L. Ed. at 900...
...Justice Powell stated in Oliver that an open field need be neither open nor a field. Oliver, U.S., 104 S. Ct. at 1742, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 225, n. 11. In other words, woods, brush, and water courses could be considered an open field under that doctrine. This of course cannot be interpreted to mean that the open field doctrine will apply to buildings and greenhouses per se. Where such structures are part of the curtilage or have some nexus with the curtilage, they will be afforded Fourth Amendment protection. But where, as here, the structure is separate from the curtilage and any relation with the curtilage is totally lacking, and the structure is situated in the midst of an open field, the open field doctrine will apply. We interpret the "open fields" doctrine as being concerned primarily with the character of the area as distinguished from the more highly protected curtilage.
Blalock v. State, 483 N.E.2d 439, 442-443 (Ind. 1985).
So explain to me again why Conservation Officers have so much more "power" than "regular" police officers? Could it be that the normal subject of their enforcement duties take them into the fields, woods and onto the waterways where no police officer needs a warrant? Places where "regular" police officers could go, but usually don't have a reason to?
Your home and curtilage are protected from search people....curtilage, learn it, live it, love it.
I would suggest not impliedly threatening to shoot Conservation Officers, or anyone else. Neat internet gun forum fodder....not so hot way to stay out of jail.
Last edited: