People v. Scott, 79 N.Y.2d 474 (1992)
Under the New York State Constitution, landowners who conspicuously post “No Trespassing” signs on their property have a reasonable expectation of privacy, protecting them from warrantless searches, even in open fields outside the curtilage of their home.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that the “open fields” doctrine, as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Oliver v. United States, does not adequately protect the privacy rights guaranteed by Article I, Section 12 of the New York State Constitution. The court ruled that landowners who post “No Trespassing” signs or otherwise manifest an intent to exclude others have a reasonable expectation of privacy on their property, even in areas outside the curtilage of their dwelling. This decision allows for greater protection against warrantless searches on private land under the New York Constitution than is afforded under the Fourth Amendment.
Facts
Defendant Scott owned 165 acres of rural, undeveloped land in Chenango County, New York. He resided in a mobile home on the property. Scott conspicuously posted “No Trespassing” signs around the perimeter of his property, spaced approximately every 20 to 30 feet. William Collar, a private citizen, trespassed on Scott’s property and observed marihuana plants under cultivation. Collar reported this to the State Police, who requested that he obtain a leaf from one of the plants. Collar complied. Investigator Hyman accompanied Collar onto the property where Hyman personally observed the plants. Neither Collar’s nor Hyman’s entries were authorized by Scott. Based on this information, police obtained a search warrant and seized the marihuana plants.
Procedural History
Scott was charged with criminal possession of marihuana. He moved to suppress the evidence seized during the search, arguing that the warrant was based on illegal entries onto his property. The County Court denied the motion, relying on Oliver v. United States. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the “open fields” doctrine applied and that Scott had no legitimate expectation of privacy. Scott appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the “open fields” doctrine, as articulated in Oliver v. United States, should be adopted as the law of New York State under Article I, Section 12 of the New York State Constitution, where a landowner has posted “No Trespassing” signs and otherwise manifested an intent to exclude the public.
Holding
No, because the Oliver ruling does not adequately protect fundamental constitutional rights under the New York State Constitution.
Court’s Reasoning
The court declined to adopt the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Oliver v. United States, finding that it did not adequately protect the privacy rights guaranteed by the New York State Constitution. The court emphasized that Article I, Section 12 of the New York Constitution could provide greater protection than the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that landowners who conspicuously post “No Trespassing” signs or otherwise indicate that entry is not permitted have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court distinguished Oliver by noting that the defendant in that case had not explicitly manifested an intent to exclude the public. The court emphasized the importance of the right to be let alone, citing Justice Brandeis’s dissent in Olmstead v. United States. The court criticized the Oliver court’s suggestion that the very conduct discovered by the government’s illegal trespass (i.e., growing marihuana) could be considered as a relevant factor in determining whether the police had violated the defendant’s rights, stating “Such after-the-fact justification for illegal police conduct would not be compatible with New York’s recognition of fairness as an essential concern in criminal jurisprudence.” The court stated, “where landowners fence or post ‘No Trespassing’ signs on their private property or, by some other means, indicate unmistakably that entry is not permitted, the expectation that their privacy rights will be respected and that they will be free from unwanted intrusions is reasonable.” Because the police entries onto Scott’s posted property were illegal, the search warrant obtained based on those entries was invalid, and the evidence seized should have been suppressed.