Oliver Vs United States

Oliver v. United States states that any open field is not protected by the constitution and can be searched without a search warrant. If the fields are posted with "No Trespassing" signs they are still not protected and do not require a search warrant.

Two narcotics agents of the Kentucky State Police went to a farm (Oliver's farm) to investigate reports of marijuana being grown on the farm. When the officers arrived at the farm they went to a locked gate with a "No Trespassing" sign on the gate. They then followed a footpath that was located on the side of the fence. They walk a mile from Oliver's home and found a field of marijuana. Oliver was arrested and indicted for manufacturing a controlled substances. Applying Katz v. United States, the district court suppressed evidence of the discovery of the marijuana field, after a pretrial hearing.

Because Oliver had done all that could be expected of him to assure privacy in the area of farm searched. The court found that Oliver had a reasonable expectation that the farm would remain private. Being that the field was surrounded on all sides by woods, embankments and fence the field was not considered to be a open field.

To determine whether the discovery or seizure of the marijuana was in question valid, the open field doctrine should have been applied to this case.

Oliver contend that he circumstances of a search sometimes may

indicate that reasonable expectations of privacy were violated and that courts

therefore should analyze these circumstances on a case-by-case basis. The

language of the forth amendment itself answers their contention.(justia.com)

In any event, while the factors that Oliver urge the courts to consider

may be relevant to the forth amendment analysis in some contexts, these factors cannot be decisive on the question whether the search of an open field is subject to the Amendment. Initially, they rejected the suggestion that steps taken to protect privacy establish that expectations of privacy in an open field are legitimate. It is true, of course, that Oliver, in order to conceal his criminal activates, planted the marijuana upon secluded land and erected fences and "No Trespassing" signs around the property. And it may be