Court Opinion

ID: 9669689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:06:30.476333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:59.794080
License: Public Domain

GUIDUGLI, Judge,
Concurring in result only.
I concur in result only. I believe that the trial court’s finding that the marijuana was located outside the curtilage requires a finding that the contraband was located in an open field based upon Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984). However, based upon the facts of this case, I do not believe that the trial court addressed this issue as thoroughly and thoughtfully as it should have. In its opinion, the circuit court stated “[wjhether the marijuana itself was located within an area property [sic] defined as curtilage is not necessary to this opinion. However, the Court does find that the marijuana was located outside the curtilage [sic].” Our basis for reversing the circuit court’s order is the fact that the marijuana was outside the curtilage and thus, subject to the open field exception to a search warrant. As stated in Oliver:
The historical underpinnings of the open fields doctrine also demonstrate that the doctrine is consistent with respect for “reasonable expectations of privacy.” As Justice Holmes, writing for the Court, observed in Hester, (citation omitted), the common law distinguished “open fields” from the “curti-lage,” the land immediately surrounding and associated with the home. See 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries. The distinction implies that only the curtilage, not the neighboring open fields, warrants the Fourth Amendment protections that attach to the home. At common law, the curtilage is the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the “sanctity of a man’s home and the priva-cies of life,” (citation omitted), and therefore has been considered part of [the] home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes. Thus, courts have extended Fourth Amendment protection to the curtilage; and they have defined the curtilage, as did the common law, by reference to the factors that determine whether an individual reasonably may expect that an area immediately adjacent to the home will remain private. (Citations omitted). Conversely, the common law implies, as we reaffirm today, that no expectation of privacy legitimately attaches to open fields. (Footnotes omitted).
Id., 466 U.S. at 180,104 S.Ct. at 1742.
While I am not convinced that the circuit court’s finding that the pathway and the subsequent discovery of the marijuana under a rock within 50 feet of the recreational vehicle located in the curtilage was in fact in an “open field,” that issue is not before this Court and as such, must be accepted. For the reasons stated above, I concur in result only.