Opinion ID: 1349523
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The argument based on the uses to which land outside the curtilage of a dwelling is put.

Text: This argument by the state is of questionable significance under our state constitutional analysis, because it turns on whether the occupants of such land have a reasonable expectation of privacy in it. Under Article I, section 9, however, the question is whether governmental intrusions into privately owned land would significantly impair an individual's interest in freedom from scrutiny, i.e., his privacy. The answer is: That depends. Areas such as the vast expanse of some western ranches or    the undeveloped woods of the Northwest described by the Oliver majority, 466 U.S. at 179 n. 10, 104 S.Ct. at 1742 n. 10, may involve little or no privacy interest. Some areas of this state contain large unmarked tracts of land in which it is difficult to tell where one piece of property ends and another begins. The public may be in the habit of using these areas to hike, fish, hunt or camp. However lonely a person usually may be in such places, he or she has no true privacy in them. On the other hand, owners of even large tracts may, at some expense, take steps to keep out intruders. In this society, signs, such as No Trespassing signs, the erection of high, sturdy fences and other, similar measures are all indications that the possessor wishes to have his privacy respected. Allowing the police to intrude into private land, regardless of the steps taken by its occupant to keep it private, would be a significant limitation on the occupant's freedom from governmental scrutiny. Article I, section 9, does not permit such freewheeling official conduct. The remaining question is whether it is possible to fashion a workable test to enable the police to determine whether a particular intrusion constitutes a search under the state constitution. It is.