ok ok LB you got me my writing at times does not reflect what my mind is saying.....
Open Fields doctrine gives up your right as a landowner to stop law enforcement and open fields allows Any law enforcement person onto your "open Fields" to do their enforcement which is compliance checks.
Hunting is not a crime, neither is checking your license or your limits while hunting and making sure that the game that is owned by the public and held in trust by the "public Trust" is being legally taken by proper firearms, and obeying laws and rules set forth by you and the Legisture and the GF&P Commission that the Leg has given the power to make rules.and the legal bag limits.
LB the legal definition I came up for Open Fields; PLease read the first line of the 3rd paragraph
The open fields doctrine is a U.S. legal doctrine created judicially for purposes of evaluating claims of an unreasonable search by the government in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The open fields doctrine was first articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hester v. United States[1], which stated that "the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their 'persons, houses, papers, and effects,' is not extended to the open fields."[2] This opinion appears to be decided on the basis that "open fields are not a "constitutionally protected area" because they cannot be construed as "persons, houses, papers, [or] effects."
This method of reasoning gave way with the arrival of the landmark case Katz v. U.S.,[3] which established a two-part test for what constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The relevant criteria are "first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable."[4] 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.
In Oliver v. United States[5], the Supreme Court held that a privacy expectation regarding an open field is unreasonable:
…open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance. There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops, that occur in open fields. [6]
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, because it is an area incapable of supporting an expectation of privacy as a matter of constitutional law.
[edit] Distinguishing open fields from curtilage
While open fields are not be protected by the Fourth Amendment, the curtilage, or outdoor area immediately surrounding the home, is. Courts have treated this area as an extension of the house and as such subject to all the privacy protections afforded a person's home (unlike a person's open fields) under the Fourth Amendment.
An area is curtilage if it "harbors the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life."[7] Courts make this determination by examining "whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by."[8] Theoretically, many structures might extend the curtilage protection to the areas immediately surrounding them. The courts have gone so far as to treat a tent as a home for Fourth Amendment purposes in the past. [9][10][11] It is possible that the area immediately surrounding a tent (or any structure used as a home) might be considered curtilage.
Despite this rather broad interpretation of curtilage, the courts seem willing to find areas to be outside of the curtilage if they are in any way separate from the home (by a fence, great distance, other structures, even certain plants).[12]
[edit] References
^ Hester v. U.S., 265 U.S. 57 (1924)
^ Hester v. U.S., 265 U.S. 57, 57 (1924)
^ Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
^ Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967)
^ Oliver v. U.S., 466 U.S. 170 (1984)
^ Oliver v. U.S., 466 U.S. 170, 179 (1984)
^ United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 300 (1987)
^ United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 301 (1987)
^ United States v. Gooch, 6 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 1993)
^ LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318 (9th Cir. 1985)
^ LaDuke v. Castillo, 455 F.Supp. (E.D. Wash. 1978)
^ U.S. v. Hatch, 931 F.2d 1478 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 883 (1991)
