Talk:Open-fields doctrine

Untitled
Though interesting, this article looks like it was pulled wholesale from some other source. A quick Google shows another page with the same information (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Open-fields-doctrine), but it appears to have gleaned its information from Wikipedia rather than vice versa. I'm hesitant to call this a copyvio problem since I see nothing it was taken from, but at the very least, it needs to be wikified. --Xanzzibar 01:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Redirect
The reasonable expectation of privacy test is one of the pillars of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. It should be titled as its own article instead of being a redirect to open fields. There are other areas outside of open fields where there isn't a REP, like with evidence found in public, trash, pen registers, aerial surveillance, field tests, canine sniffs, etc.--Whitenoise101 09:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Telecommunications
This page is listed in the category 'Privacy of telecommunications.' I don't really see how this relates to telecommunications. I left the category in for now in case I just missed the connection but am suggesting it be removed. --AndrewBuck 14:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC) The concept of expectation of privacy can be interpeted as right to privacy. (r.stalnaker)

Cleanup
This article reads like soemthing written by a lawyer for another lawyer. I'd take a hack at this but I think it really needs somebody with an understanding of the subject matter to express this for a more general audience. -- Whpq 21:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ug. Can't agree with that. I'd hope a lawyer would do a better job than putting in circular statements like "Under this “new” analysis of the Fourth Amendment, privacy expectations deemed unreasonable by society cannot be validated by any steps taken by the defendant to shield the area from view." which basically boils down to "if a court deems something per se unreasonable, then it's per se unreasonable." I changed a few areas in the article, but I'm not sure if I actually improved it much. It probably needs an entirely new re-write and I'm not up to it at the moment. - 24.20.247.221 (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, it seems like the GPS tracking decision disagrees that it's a "new" analysis, instead the Katz decision adds to, and does not replace, the original meaning.  Karl Shea  09:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Recommendation for redirect to Fourth Amendment
I believe the most logical and beneficial place to access this information is within the Fourth Amendment artical. Specifically, I suggest that "open fields doctrine" be redirected there so it can be viewed in the subsection on "Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement for searches." There, the open fields doctrine can be properly considered in context with other exceptions (e.g., the automobile and plain view exceptions) which would make understanding the concepts underlying the doctrine more accessible for everyone. Of course, I am open to discussion about the redirect, please speak up if you don't think that is a good idea. Mr. schmitty 23:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's a subcategory of reasonable expectation of privacy, which itself is a subcategory of the Fourth Amendment. --Whitenoise101 02:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Syntax/grammar?
"== Distinguishing open fields from curtilage ==

While open fields are not be protected by the Fourth Amendment, the curtilage, or outdoor area..."

State exemptions
''Courts have continuously held that entry into an open field—whether trespass or not—is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. No matter what steps a person takes, he or she cannot create a reasonable privacy expectation in an open field ...''

Not true. The highest courts of four states—Montana, New York, Oregon and Washington—have held that their state constitutions give greater protection than the U.S. Constitution does here and the open-fields doctrine does not apply, at least if a landowner has done something like post the property lines to assert his interest.

I will be writing a subsection about this ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, as noted in the article now, I found that Vermont's Supreme Court held this way too.
 * Also, interesting paper here arguing that the Court has misread the common law on trespass by assuming English and American law were harmonious on the subject as of the late 18th century, which the author says contradicts the historical record as every colony/state had laws on the books that permitted some sort of public access for at least hunting purposes and often limited a landowner's right to deny such access to those locations he had formally and physically enclosed] (and even then, trespass was more of a tort that allowed him only to recover for damages to the property). Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)