The amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to security of person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the question at issue here is whether this also applies to open searches and searches of objects in plain sight and whether the Fourth Amendment also provides protection for these. To reaffirm the courts' decision on this topic, I will link their decisions in Oliver v. United States (1984) and California v. Greenwood (1988) who directly address the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy under the Fourth Amendment regarding objects in the open or in plain view. The distinction between open field and private property must be made before we can proceed to form an opinion 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 into an open area and secluded Oliver's property without a warrant, discovered the marijuana field and then arrested Oliver without a warrant. The Maine Circuit Court found that the “No Trespassing” signs posted around Oliver's property “demonstrated a reasonable expectation of privacy,” and therefore the court found that the “open field” doctrine did not apply to the Oliver case. . After hearing the case, the Supreme Court holds that the special protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment do not extend to open fields. “Open fields do not provide the environment for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to protect from government interference or surveillance.” The court refers to the case Hester v. United States (1924) which set the precedent for “open field cases” and interprets that case to mean that “an individual may not lawfully claim privacy for activities conducted outdoors in the fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home. "The piece of marijuana was nowhere near Oliver's house, and in an open field, regardless of its visibility from public access, left the court affirming Oliver v. United States, and reversing the case Thornton v. Maine, and essentially reaffirming That

Topic > The amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to security of person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the question at issue here is whether this also applies to open searches and searches of objects in plain sight and whether the Fourth Amendment also provides protection for these. To reaffirm the courts' decision on this topic, I will link their decisions in Oliver v. United States (1984) and California v. Greenwood (1988) who directly address the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy under the Fourth Amendment regarding objects in the open or in plain view. The distinction between open field and private property must be made before we can proceed to form an opinion 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 into an open area and secluded Oliver's property without a warrant, discovered the marijuana field and then arrested Oliver without a warrant. The Maine Circuit Court found that the “No Trespassing” signs posted around Oliver's property “demonstrated a reasonable expectation of privacy,” and therefore the court found that the “open field” doctrine did not apply to the Oliver case. . After hearing the case, the Supreme Court holds that the special protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment do not extend to open fields. “Open fields do not provide the environment for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to protect from government interference or surveillance.” The court refers to the case Hester v. United States (1924) which set the precedent for “open field cases” and interprets that case to mean that “an individual may not lawfully claim privacy for activities conducted outdoors in the fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home. "The piece of marijuana was nowhere near Oliver's house, and in an open field, regardless of its visibility from public access, left the court affirming Oliver v. United States, and reversing the case Thornton v. Maine, and essentially reaffirming That