30.06.2014 Views

SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Chapter 12<br />

Open Fields:<br />

General Rule: <strong>The</strong> constitutional protections relating to homes do not apply to<br />

open fields beyond the curtilage of the home. (Oliver v. United States (1984) 466<br />

U.S. 170 [80 L.Ed.2 nd 214].)<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Fourth</strong> <strong>Amendment</strong>, by its terms, protects only “persons, houses,<br />

papers <strong>and</strong> effects.” Open fields do not come within these four protected<br />

categories. (United States v. Dunn (1987) 480 U. S. 294, 300 [94 L. Ed.<br />

2d 326]; see also United States v. Jones (Jan. 23, 2012) __ U.S. __ [132<br />

S.Ct. 945; 181 L.Ed.2 nd 911].)<br />

<strong>The</strong>refore, trespassing onto defendant’s open l<strong>and</strong> does not implicate the<br />

Constitution, <strong>and</strong> any observations made while doing so are admissible.<br />

(Ibid; Hester v. United States (1924) 265 U.S. 57 [68 L.Ed. 898].)<br />

Narcotics officers entered the defendant’s l<strong>and</strong>, past “No Trespassing”<br />

signs <strong>and</strong> barbed wire fencing. Entry into such an area, not part of the<br />

cartilage of any home, was not contested. (United States v. Barajas-<br />

Avalos (9 th Cir, 2004) 359 F.3 rd 1204.)<br />

A warrantless airplane search, acting on a tip, at altitudes of between 300<br />

to 700 feet, resulting in observation of defendant’s half-football-fieldsized<br />

marijuana grow, was lawful. (Dean v. Superior Court (1973) 35<br />

Cal.App.3 rd 112.)<br />

Similarly, observation of a marijuana patch from 1,500 to 2,000 feet,<br />

visible to the naked eye (<strong>and</strong> then enhanced through the use of binoculars),<br />

did not violate the defendant’s privacy rights. (Burkholder v. Superior<br />

Court (1979) 96 Cal.App.3 rd 421; see also People v. St. Amour (1980) 104<br />

Cal.App.3 rd 886, observations made from 1,000 to 1,500 feet, again<br />

enhanced through the use of binoculars, held to be lawful; <strong>and</strong> People v.<br />

Joubert (1981) 118 Cal.App.3 rd 637.)<br />

Observations made into private areas from an “open field” beyond the curtilage<br />

of the home are lawful. (United States v. Dunn (1987) 480 U.S. 294 [94 L.Ed.2 nd<br />

326].)<br />

California expressly follows the federal rule. (People v. Channing (2000)<br />

81 Cal.App.4 th 985.)<br />

Observations made from a common driveway used by other residents <strong>and</strong><br />

the public into the curtilage of defendant’s home (i.e., his garage) were<br />

© 2012 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved<br />

600

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!