Court Opinion

ID: 9778142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:33:55.211318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:04.087846
License: Public Domain

TATUM, Judge,
concurring.
I agree that State v. Wert, 550 S.W.2d 1 (Tenn.Cr.App.1977) is not applicable. However, I would point out that though the Tennessee Supreme Court denied certiorari in State v. Wert, supra, the Supreme Court has not sanctioned this court’s opinion in State v. Wert. The order of the Supreme Court denying certiorari, specified that its refusal to review State v. Wert was based upon a jurisdictional proposition only and the Court did not consider the merits of State v. Wert.
I would also mention that the majority opinion in the Wert case relied heavily on United States ex rel. Gedko v. Heer, 406 P.Supp. 609 (WD Wis.1975). On December 6,1976, the 7th Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, filed its opinion in United States ex rel. Saiken v. Bensinger, 546 F.2d 1292 (7th Cir. 1976), which in effect overrules Gedko v. Heer, supra, and recognizes the validity of the “open fields doctrine” as established in Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 44 S.Ct. 445, 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924). *804Thus, the holding of the District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin is no longer authority, even in that jurisdiction.
Insofar as I know, Tennessee is the only American jurisdiction protecting open fields. I hope that our Supreme Court some day reaches this vital question on its merits.