Court Opinion

ID: 9855733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:29:59.356663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:36:31.921347
License: Public Domain

Smith, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority concludes that, since the area in question lies within a field, the Fourth Amendment is simply inapplicable. I respectfully dissent.
According to the majority, Fourth Amendment protection extends to a home or a curtilage, but not to a field. Notwithstanding some authority to the contrary, I do not believe the Fourth Amendment questions raised by this case can be resolved by resort to a mere labelling process. “[T]his effort to decide whether or not a given ‘area,’ viewed in the abstract, is ‘constitutionally protected’ deflects attention from the problem presented by this case. For (the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places). What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. See Lewis v. United States, 385 U. S. 206, 210; United States v. Lee, 274 U. S. 559, 563. But *263what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. See Rios v. United States, 364 U. S. 253, Ex parte Jackson, 96 U. S. 727, 733.” Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 351-352 (88 SC 507, 19 LE2d 576) (1967). “[W]herever an individual may harbor a reasonable ‘expectation of privacy’.. .he is entitled to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 9 (88 SC 1868, 20 LE2d 889) (1967); Kelley v. State, 146 Ga. App. 179 (245 SE2d 872) (1978). “[A]n appropriate test is whether the person has exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy, and, if so, whether that expectation has been violated by unreasonable governmental intrusion.” People v. Edwards, 80 Cal. Rptr. 633, 635 (458 P2d 713) (1969). “The test of reasonableness is dependent upon the totality of facts and circumstances involved in the context of each case . . .” Phelan v. Superior Court, 151 Cal. Rptr. 599, 603 (App. 1979).
The majority bases its decision on Hester v. United States, 265 U. S. 57 (44 SC 445, 68 LE 898) (1924). The federal cases are in conflict as to the meaning of Hester. See United States v. Freie, 545 F2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1976); Wattenburg v. United States, 388 F2d 853 (9th Cir. 1968); Atwell v. United States, 414 F2d 136 (5th Cir. 1969); United States ex rel. Saiken v. Bensinger, 546 F2d 1292 (7th Cir. 1976). See also People v. Lashmett, 71 Ill. App. 3d 429 (389 NE2d 888) (1979). Nonetheless, there appears to be a tendency to apply the “open fields” doctrine in cases where the evidence shows the area in question to be readily accessible and open to the public (see Air Pollution Variance Board v. Western Alfalfa Corp., 416 US 861 (94 SC 2114, 40 LE2d 607) (1974); McDowell v. United States, 383 F2d 599 (8th Cir. 1967)), or where the indicia of private ownership fail to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of privacy (see United States v. Hare, 589 F2d 242 (5th Cir. 1979); People v. Bradley, 81 Cal. Rptr. 457 (1969); State v. Charvat, 573 P2d 660 (Mont. 1978)). The Georgia cases cited by the majority appear to be supportive of this conclusion. See also Frazier v. State, 138 Ga. App. 640, 645-646 (227 SE2d 284) (1976). In my view, a determination based upon reasonable privacy expectations is clearly preferable to a determination based upon a characterization of the place of search because it more closely reflects the core value expressed by the Fourth Amendment — freedom from unreasonable governmental intrusion. See Berger v. New York, 388 U. S. 41, 53 (87 SC 1873, 18 LE2d 1040) (1967).
The area in question in the instant case is located in a sparsely populated rural county. The property is surrounded by a barbed wire fence. A photograph of the entrance to the property shows that a “no trespassing sign was posted, although the testimony is in conflict as to whether the sign was posted at the time of the search. The entrance to *264the property was blocked by a large metal gate. At the time of the search, the gate was locked. The area where the marijuana was located was surrounded by hills and dense foliage. The area could not be seen from adjoining property. Under these circumstances, I must conclude that appellant had an “actual subjective expectation of privacy” and that the expectation was “objectively reasonable.” United States v. Freie, supra at 1223. See State v. Wert, 550 SW2d 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1977); State v. Larkin, 588 SW2d 544 (Tenn. 1979); Phelan v. Superior Court, supra. In terms of the “open field” doctrine, the area in question was not “open.”
For the reasons stated above, I believe the investigatory search undertaken by the police in this case was subject to the Fourth Amendment. The state has shown no exigent circumstances relieving the police of their duty to obtain a search warrant. Indeed, the state has not demonstrated that the police ever had probable cause to search. I cannot subscribe to the view that, merely because the tool shed and surrounding property cannot be characterized as a house and curtilage, the police had unlimited authority to conduct a general exploratory search of both. Appellant clearly had a legitimate expectation of privacy with respect to the area in question. Without probable cause and a warrant, the area was not subject to police intrusion. Under the circumstances of this case, the motion to suppress should have been granted.