STATES AREN’T DUNN DISAGREEING ON THE FOURTH AMENDMENT Laura Ahrens Jennifer Hammack Georgia College & State University

Federal vs. State SCOTUS has held that “No Trespassing” signs on land / an accessible field do not allow an individual to claim an expectation of privacy for activities conducted thereon

Background: Fourth Amendment “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 warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Background: Curtilage The area immediately surrounding a dwelling that counts as an extension of the home for legal purposes (i.e. searches, seizures) Protected area under the Fourth Amendment

Background: Open Field Anything plainly visible to the eye (even if on private property) is subject to search and seizure Not a protected area under the Fourth Amendment No expectation to a right of privacy within an open field area

Background: Open Field Doctrine Hester v. United States first introduced the concept: “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. The distinction between the latter and the house is as old as the common law”

Land use – Northern U.S. Culture Additional consideration of states’ rights More accepting of the unconventional or what may appear bizarre/offensive to other states “The right to be let alone” (People v. Scott)

Land use – Southern U.S. Culture More reliance upon federally established precedent Appear more focused on tradition in order to maintain “reasonable” civil liberties

Federal Scope United States v. Dunn (1987) Legal Issue: Is the area located 50 yards from a fence surrounding a ranch house within the curtilage of the house (for Fourth Amendment purposes)? Holding: No

4 Step Test Proximity to the (protected) home 2. Within an enclosure surrounding the home 3. Nature and uses of the area 4. Steps taken to protect observation of the area from the public eye

Application/Reasoning 1. Barn stood 60 yards from home (substantial distance) 2. Barn was not within an area surrounding the home 3. Barn was not being used for intimate activities associated with the home 4. Little protection from pubic observation in the “open field”

Interesting Dissent Justices Brennan and Marshall: Holding: View the situation and ruling as a violation of Fourth Amendment rights

Dissent Reasoning Majority overlooked the role that a barn plays in rural life and ignores numerous precedent confirming that multiple outbuildings near a house are within the curtilage “A domestic building constituting an integral part of that group of structures making up the farm home.” - Walker v. U.S.

4 Step Test Distance between home and barn does not remove the barn from curtilage 2. Configuration of fences is irrelevant for the outbuilding in this case 3. Failure of an area to be in domestic use does not deny it from being recognized within curtilage – smell of chemicals/sounds of motor do not remove protection from a protected outbuilding 4. Respondent did in fact take extensive measures to ensure his privacy

State Scope (Northern U.S.) People v. Scott (1992) Legal Issue: Does defendant maintain an expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 12 of the New York Constitution? Does the Oliver ruling adequately protect fundamental constitutional rights? ___________________________________________ Holdings: Yes / No

Reasoning Whether or not an individual chooses to conceal private activity is irrelevant – the government is clearly infringing upon personal and [state] societal values protected by the Fourth Amendment “We believe that under the law of this State the citizens are entitled to more protection.” – Judge Hancock

State Scope (Southern U.S.) Payton v. State (1985) Legal Issue: Do the initial intrusions by law enforcement officers constitute illegal searches based on the they were conducted without a search warrant and within the curtilage of defendant’s home? ___________________________________________ Holding: No

Reasoning Court ruled, “No invasion of a legitimate expectation of privacy.” Relied largely upon the decision in Oliver v. U.S.

Effects on individual liberties Various interpretations have the ability to increase confusion in an already complex judicial system Although multiple decisions and divergences from precedent add to complexity, ensured civil liberties is certainly a positive aspect of American government

Future Presumptions More complexity to come: telephones, aerial surveillance, technology (and in homes) Application of previous federal cases to guide state cases dependent on relevant facts Predict future cases will be decided in light of a continued (if not increased) desire to maintain civil liberties at a more liberal, reasonable standard