Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Oliver v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1984 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureOpen Fields Doctrineopen fieldsFourth Amendmentwarrantless searchcurtilage

Facts

In Oliver, Kentucky narcotics officers, acting on reports of marijuana cultivation, went to Oliver's farm, passed his house, bypassed a locked gate marked with a "No Trespassing" sign, walked several hundred yards, and eventually found a marijuana field more than a mile from the home. In Thornton, officers followed a path through woods behind a residence and found two fenced marijuana patches; they later learned the patches were on Thornton's property, obtained a warrant based on what they had seen, and seized the marijuana. In both cases, the searched areas were secluded and marked or enclosed in ways intended to exclude the public. Neither search was supported by a warrant at the time officers first entered the land.

Issue

Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit police from entering and searching privately owned, secluded land outside the area immediately surrounding the home without a warrant, especially where the owner has posted "No Trespassing" signs or erected barriers? More specifically, does the open fields doctrine remain valid after Katz v. United States?

Rule

The open fields doctrine remains valid: an individual has no legitimate expectation that open fields will remain free from warrantless intrusion by government officers. Open fields are not among the persons, houses, papers, and effects protected by the Fourth Amendment, and activities conducted in fields outside the curtilage are not protected merely because the owner posted signs, erected fences, or could exclude trespassers under property law.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In rural Ohio, Deputy Lena Ortiz received a tip that Caleb Morrow was storing illegal firearms parts on his acreage. Without a warrant, she stepped over a locked perimeter gate marked with several "No Trespassing" signs and walked 700 yards to a fenced meadow behind a tree line, where she found the parts lying under tarps well outside the area immediately surrounding the farmhouse.

Is the deputy's entry into the meadow most likely a Fourth Amendment search?

Explanation. The majority reaffirmed that open fields are not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Land outside the curtilage is not transformed into protected space by fences, locked gates, or "No Trespassing" signs, even when secluded from public view. The constitutional inquiry does not turn on common-law trespass or on the owner's efforts to conceal activity in an open field.