Understanding the Open Fields Doctrine and Abandonment of Property

Under the open fields' doctrine, evidence seized without a warrant or probable cause is legal because it is not protected under the fourth amendment. There are of course some areas which are not included in the Open Fields Doctrine, these are houses and curtilage. Curtilage is defined as the grounds and the buildings which surround the dwelling and residential yard provided that the public does not have access to it. This can include garages, unless they are extremely far in distance from the home and rarely used. This can also apply to sheds, barns and other outside structures dependent upon location and usage.

There are factors which determine curtilage regarding the property and rights of seizure.

These are as follows:

The first is the proximity in the area to the house or dwelling. Determining how far the area in question is located from the house or dwelling is essential. It can determine whether or not the building can be considered for a warrantless search.

The second is whether or not the area is in an enclosed area which surrounds the home or dwelling. For instance one of the scenarios that would be examined would be a fence and how close it resides to the house.

The third is dependent upon the nature and the use of the area. The authorities would be responsible for determining how the area is used. Is the area used for storage or possibly the manufacturing of narcotics?

The fourth is regarding the steps taken to conceal the area from the public view. If the occupant has deliberately worked to conceal the area, this will also factor into the ability of law enforcements authority to search the premises.

Curtilage:

Curtilage must follow specific guidelines. The further away the buildings are from the house or dwellings are more likely to be considered an open field under the doctrine. If there is an attached garage, this would most likely not fall under the guidelines of curtilage. However an outside storage several hundreds of feet away from the house would most likely be considered curtilage.

In the case of Oliver vs. the United States in 1984, Oliver was suspected of growing marijuana approximately one mile from his residential house. Officers in the proximity were passing by and noticed a locked gate with a no trespassing sign posted. The officers did not however have a warrant or probably cause or even exigent circumstances. They did however notice that marijuana was growing in the field. When the case went to court the defendant Oliver argued that the police had violated his rights under the fourth amendment.

However, the court did not agree with Oliver. The judge decided that it was in fact a legal search because the police saw the marijuana growing in the field in plain view. The court also stated that because the marijuana was growing in plain view they did not need a warrant to enter and search the open fields. The court also noted that while the government did intrude into an open field and the officers were trespassing it did not make it a search under the constitution. It is due to cases such as this one that have broadened the open field doctrine under the law.

The Abandonment of property:

Abandonment of property means that the owner or possessor gives ups their right to an item. This is not protected under the fourth amendment because the item was given up and it does not invade person's reasonable expectation of privacy under the constitution.

There are of course determining factors as to where the property is left or abandoned.The first criteria states that it is generally assumed that if the item is left in a public place that the item is abandoned. This also includes a person's garbage. Once the item is placed onto the public street or domain it becomes abandoned property.When an item is abandoned the actions that the law enforcement officers take to seize the item must be legal. For instance if a car has been abandoned, the officer must leave legal notices, or tickets upon the vehicle to warn the owner that the vehicle will be removed after a certain period of time.

The second factor in whether an item has been abandoned or not is in the intent. This is primarily determined by what a person does, and not what a person thinks. If a person denies that they own an item, it can establish the grounds of abandonment. If a person leaves a vehicle in a parking lot or on the street for any extended period of time, this shows intent, that the owner or occupant has given up their right or ownership to the vehicle.

When it comes to vehicles there are also certain criteria that must be met to establish that property has been abandoned.

The first criterion is based upon if the person had willing flight from the vehicle.

The second criteria are where and how long the vehicle has been left unattended for.

The third criteria of the abandoned vehicle is also dependent upon the condition of the vehicle, as in was the vehicle unlocked, wrecked, left with a note of intention.

The fourth criterion is based upon the denial of possession or ownership.

Understanding how the open field's doctrine and abandonment criteria work can be essential to anyone who wants to understand how these concepts apply to your personal rights.