Court Opinion

ID: 9467194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:41:23.380983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:12.982284
License: Public Domain

ERVIN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent because I believe that the majority erred in failing to grant Ramapuram’s motion to suppress evidence allegedly seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures of “persons, houses, papers, and effects.” It is undisputed that the recovery of most of the dynamite resulted from a warrantless search and seizure by state and federal law enforcement officers.
In order to protect the privacy of a citizen against arbitrary invasions by government officials, the Supreme Court has expressed a strong preference that law enforcement officers secure search warrants prior to searching private property. See, e. g., Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 528-29, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 1730, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967); Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-15, 68 S.Ct. 367, 368, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948). The warrant procedure is designed to interpose the judgment of probable cause by a detached neutral judicial officer between the citizen and the police. By requiring that the decision of probable cause to search be made by a neutral judicial officer prior to the search, the citizen is protected from the hurried decision made by someone engaged “in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.” Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14, 68 S.Ct. 367, 369, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948). Because of the strong preference in favor of search warrants, there is a presumption that a warrantless search of private property is per se unreasonable, unless the search falls within one of the clearly delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2031, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364, 370, 88 S.Ct. 2120, 2124, 20 L.Ed.2d 1154 (1968); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 514, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). The majority has made no attempt to conclude that the search of Ramapuram’s property fell within one of the clearly delineated exceptions,1 *1158and thus has not overcome the presumption that the warrantless search of Ramapuram’s property was per se unreasonable.
Whether a search and seizure is actually unreasonable depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58, 59, 87 S.Ct. 788, 789, 17 L.Ed.2d 730 (1967). The ultimate test of the reasonableness of a warrantless search, however, is whether property was searched in which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy from governmental intrusion. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). I strongly disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Ramapuram had no reasonable or justifiable expectation of privacy in the trunk of the “junker” car found on the premises of the family’s farm.2
The majority focuses on several factors that allegedly lessened Ramapuram’s expectation of privacy. One such factor is that Ramapuram’s car was found in an open field, an area seemingly outside the protection of the Fourth Amendment. In Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 44 S.Ct. 445, 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924), the case in which the open field exception was recognized by the Supreme Court, revenue officers ventured on property belonging to Hester’s father. While on the property, the officers observed Hester and an associate engaged in a transaction involving illegal liquor. The officers pursued Hester after the transaction, and during the pursuit, Hester dropped a jug of the illegal liquor on his father’s premises, which broke the jug. The revenue officers examined the jug and its contents. Over Hester’s objection, the Court upheld the inspection noting that the acts of Hester and his associates disclosed the jug and that there was no seizure when the officers examined the jug after it had been abandoned. Id. at 58, 44 S.Ct. at 446. The Court further commented that the protection of the Fourth Amendment does not extend to open fields. Id. at 59, 44 S.Ct. at 446. The application of Hester remains unclear. Hester has been cited frequently by the Supreme Court in support of the plain view doctrine. See, e.g., Air Pollution Variance Board v. Western Alfalfa Corp., 416 U.S. 861, 865, 94 S.Ct. 2114, 2115, 40 L.Ed.2d 607 (1974) (smoke emitted from chimney seized); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 465, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2037, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 236, 88 S.Ct. 992, 993, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968); accord, McDowell v. United States, 383 F.2d 599 (8th Cir. 1967) (identity of persons coming from field and samples of corn and millet seized). Cf. United States v. Brown, 487 F.2d 208 (4th Cir. 1973) (per curiam), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 909, 94 S.Ct. 1617, 40 L.Ed.2d 114 (1974) (ATF agents entered onto the defendant’s premises and detected smell of fermentation. Such detection used to obtain search warrant, and detection upheld under open field doctrine); accord, United States v. Williams, 581 F.2d 451 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 972, 99 S.Ct. 1537, 59 L.Ed.2d 789 (1979). The open field exception, however, has not been used by the courts as a license for a police officer to enter and search an object or effect in an open field, the contents of which are secluded from his view. See, e. g., United States v. Brown, 487 F.2d 208 (4th Cir. 1973) (per curiam), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 909, 94 S.Ct. 1617, 40 L.Ed.2d 114 (1974) (barn); United States v. Williams, 581 F.2d 451 (5th Cir. 1978) (shed), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 972, 99 S.Ct. 1537, 59 L.Ed.2d 789 (1979). But see United States v. Basile, 569 F.2d 1053 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 920, 98 S.Ct. 2268, 56 L.Ed.2d 761 (1978) (officer allowed to peer into window of immobile van). Cf. United States v. Diaz-Segovia, 457 F.Supp. 260, 270 (D.Md.1978) (officers may trespass on private property for surveillance as long as *1159they do not search house or curtelage or peer into enclosed buildings or vehicles). In light of other courts’ interpretations of Hester, a visual search of the exterior of the car and other parts in plain view to an officer in the field should be distinguished from a search of the enclosed trunk. The former may be searched without a warrant, whereas the latter should not be.
Since Hester, moreover, the Supreme Court has turned its focus in search and seizure cases away from the concept of constitutionally protected and unprotected places. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351, 88 S.Ct. 507, 511, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). Instead, the Court has directed its attention to persons and to what they seek to preserve as private. Id. Thus, in light of Katz, the validity of a blanket exclusion of an open field from Fourth Amendment protection is, at best, questionable. See Wattenburg v. United States, 388 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1968). Cf. United States v. Minton, 488 F.2d 37 (4th Cir. 1973) (per curiam), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 936, 94 S.Ct. 1936, 40 L.Ed.2d 287 (1974) (focus on reasonable expectation of privacy in search and seizure cases is more important than real property concepts); accord, Patler v. Slayton, 353 F.Supp. 376 (E.D.Va.1973), aff’d, 503 F.2d 472 (4th Cir. 1974).
The Supreme Court in Katz distinguished that which a person knowingly exposes to the public from that which a person seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public. The former is not subject to Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure, whereas the latter may be protected. 389 U.S. at 351, 88 S.Ct. at 511. Clearly, as even the majority recognizes, Ramapuram sought to keep private any item placed in the trunk of the “junker” located on his family’s property.
I cannot see how Ramapuram’s reasonable expectation of privacy was diminished by parking his junker car in an area on his family’s private farm. The rural character of the area should have some bearing on Ramapuram’s expectation of privacy. Unlike an urban dweller, whose activities and effects are more likely to be viewed by the casual passerby, the rural dweller reasonably can expect more privacy concerning his activities and his effects if his premises are far removed from the public road. See United States v. Holmes, 521 F.2d 859, 870 (5th Cir. 1975), on rehearing, 537 F.2d 227 (5th Cir. 1976). In order to reach the junker the agents had to proceed down a farm road3 and across the Ramapuram property for a considerable distance from the public road. Ramapuram clearly did not knowingly expose his junker car to the public when the car was left on the premises of his farm at a distance of between 150 to 200 feet from the main road. Ramapuram’s placement of the car is not comparable to the placing of a jacket on a coat rack in a general work area visible to any casual passerby, United States v. Alewelt, 532 F.2d 1165 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 840, 97 S.Ct. 114, 50 L.Ed.2d 109 (1976), or to leaving a car parked along a public road. United States v. Newbourn, 600 F.2d 452 (4th Cir. 1979). Furthermore, Ramapuram had a property interest in the farm by virtue of his family’s ownership of the premises. Although ownership alone may be insufficient to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy, it is nevertheless a relevant inquiry, United States v. Dall, 608 F.2d 910, 914 (1st Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 918, 100 S.Ct. 1280, 63 L.Ed.2d 603 (1980), and promotes a more reasonable expectation of privacy than that of someone who has no possessory or property interest in the searched property, United States v. Jackson, 585 F.2d 653 (4th Cir. 1978) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in property stored in a vacant house in which the defendant had no possessory or property interest).
A second factor that the majority considers as diminishing Ramapuram’s expectation of privacy is that the item searched was a car. Yet, the majority at all times refers to Ramapuram’s vehicle not as a car but as another effect, a “junker.” Thus, the majority does not and indeed cannot *1160justify its decision by treating the “junker” as a car falling within the automobile exception to the search warrant. The problem that remains, therefore, is that the majority has not adopted any other justification for the warrantless search. Furthermore, even though there may be a lesser expectation of privacy in a car than in a dwelling, see South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976), the degree of such lesser expectation is not clear. This court has spoken of the lesser expectation of privacy in an automobile in terms of the motorist operating his vehicle on public streets and highways. United States v. Newbourn, 600 F.2d 452 (4th Cir. 1979). Clearly, this is not such a situation. Certainly, a car, as an effect, is afforded some Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. See, e.g., United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 12, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 2484, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977); Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973). Moreover, there is some indication that there may be a more reasonable expectation of privacy in the interior and trunk of the car than there is in the exterior parts. See, e.g., Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 591, 94 S.Ct. 2464, 2469, 41 L.Ed.2d 325 (1971) (authorizing warrantless examination of exterior of car while noting that there may be some interior parts of the car subject to Fourth Amendment protection); United States v. Holmes, 521 F.2d 859 (5th Cir. 1975) (dicta), on rehearing, 537 F.2d 227 (5th Cir. 1976) (person may complain if police without probable cause or the existence of exigent circumstances break into his car and seize objects hidden in the trunk or glove compartment); United States v. Brown, 457 F.2d 731 (1st Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 843, 93 S.Ct. 42, 34 L.Ed.2d 82 (1973). Even if there is a lesser expectation of privacy in an automobile than in a dwelling, such lesser expectation without other compelling circumstances does not authorize a warrantless search of Ramapuram’s trunk parked on his private property. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971).
In addition to relying on the open field exception and the characterization of the item searched as a car as diminishing Ramapuram’s expectation of privacy, the majority considers other lessening factors. The majority focuses on the absence of a lock on the trunk of Ramapuram’s car. A repository of personal belongings is not outside the protection of the Fourth Amendment merely because it does not have a lock to secure it. See Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979) (warrantless search of unlocked suitcase in trunk of taxicab unreasonable). Cf. United States v. Bradshaw, 490 F.2d 1097 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 895, 95 S.Ct. 173, 42 L.Ed.2d 139 (1974) (unreasonable search to peer through space between the edges of truck doors that did not fit together properly). There may be less need for a lock to protect effects on private property than in a public airport or in the back of a taxicab. It is not persuasive, moreover, that Ramapuram did not reside permanently on the premises searched since the district court concluded that Ramapuram used the farm frequently although the premises were leased to others. Although such factors may have lessened Ramapuram’s expectation of privacy, I am not persuaded that such factors viewed together extinguished any reasonable expectation of privacy that Ramapuram had in the trunk of his “junker” parked on his family’s farm.
Furthermore, I cannot ignore, as the majority appears to have done, the strong presumption that a warrantless search of personal property is per se unreasonable. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 514, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). I am not convinced that there was sufficient reason to dispense with a warrant in this case. The facts in this case are analogous to those in United States v. Bradshaw, 490 F.2d 1097 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 895, 95 S.Ct. 173, 42 L.Ed.2d 139 (1974). In Bradshaw, an Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agent and two state police officers, suspecting the defendant of distilling liquor, proceeded to the vicinity of the defendant’s residence to search for a still in the fields adjacent to the defendant’s property. While searching *1161the adjacent fields, the officers detected the smell of whiskey emanating from a seemingly abandoned vehicle located beyond the boundaries of the defendant’s property beside an access road leading to defendant’s residence. The officers and agent went to defendant’s residence to ask him if he knew anything about the abandoned vehicle. When the defendant failed to answer the front door, the agent decided to try the back door. En route to the rear of the house, the agent discovered a 1952 truck parked near the house. The truck had sideboards and swinging rear doors so that the casual glance of a passerby would not have discovered whatever may have been resting on the bed of the truck. When the agent detected the smell of whiskey coming from the truck, he peered through a crack in the doors at the rear of the truck and saw a large number of jugs containing white liquid. The agent entered the truck without a warrant, ascertained that the jugs contained moonshine and seized the jugs. The court held that because the objects on the bed of the truck could not be viewed except by someone who took special pains to peer through the crack and because the truck was on the defendant’s premises near his residence, the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the truck bed. The court further emphasized that defendant’s expectation of privacy with respect to the contents of the truck was enhanced because the vehicle was parked on the defendant’s property. Id. at 1103. Similarly, Ramapuram’s junker was on his private rural property and the contents of the trunk were not visible to the casual passerby. The court in Bradshaw noted that there were no circumstances that would work to dispense with the necessity of obtaining a warrant prior to searching the truck. The court concluded that two agents could have guarded the truck while the third obtained a warrant. Similarly in Ramapuram’s situation, there was no need to dispense with obtaining a warrant prior to searching Ramapuram’s trunk. As in Bradshaw, there were a sufficient number of agents to stand guard while the others went to obtain a warrant. The car was in the exclusive control of the agents, see United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977); United States v. Johnson, 588 F.2d 147 (5th Cir. 1979), and there were no exigent circumstances supporting the need for an immediate search or seizure.
In light both of the strong presumption in favor of search warrants and of the lack of circumstances which would mandate dispensing with a warrant, I conclude that the search and seizure of Ramapuram’s property was unreasonable. The evidence obtained as a result of the search, therefore, should have been suppressed.

. The majority found that the automobile exception was inapplicable. Furthermore, the majority refused to find that exigent circumstances were present that justified a warrant-less search.

. Whether this case was decided on standing grounds or on the grounds that the search was unreasonable is unclear. As indicated by the majority opinion, the test in either situation is whether the complaining party had a reasonable expectation of privacy. See, e.g., Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967).

. The testimony in the record conflicts on whether the farm road was public or private.