The Open Field doctrine warrants the operations of Officer Williams and Officer Martinez’. The doctrine must, however, operate in line with the Fourth amendment. Persons are protected from “unreasonable searches and seizures” by the Fourth Amendment. As a result, individuals are therefore provided with a right to experience the feeling of security and protection of their privacy in person, while at their homes, in papers and also effects. Since Officer Williams and Officer Martinez’s are representatives of the legal institutions, the Open Field doctrine permits them to utilize materials and items in the outward environs of a suspected alleged criminal’s property. On the other hand, numerous defendants up to date are in disagreement with the whole part of the Open Field doctrine.
For instance, in the case of Hester vs. the United States, the court ruled that the Fourth Amendment could not influence the application of the open field doctrine (Hester & Baker, 1997). The fourth amendment only protects persons, houses, papers, and effects, and usually, it does not exceed its influence on the open lots. The police are obliged to adhere to the probable cause and requirements of warrants in cases where they are carrying out searches in regions such as the pastures grounds, wooded areas, open water, and, lastly, vacant or empty lots. The provision was made in the year 1924 as part of Hester vs. the United States ruling. In that case, Hester presented an appeal in a lower court after he was sentenced for committing an offense of hiding distilled spirits (Hester & Baker, 1997). Hester gave a fact of appeal direct from the District Court, stating that on the one defense, it was necessary to eliminate the testament of the two volunteer individual witnesses of the case and the suspect’s direct judgment.
Additionally, in the case of Katz vs. the US, the court declared through an announcement that the fourth amendment and the changes it imposed had no protection over places. Therefore the doubts of individuals about the open field doctrine were cleared. Individuals earlier thought that open field formed part of the effects protected by the fourth amendment. The contraction was, however, explained by the court case of Oliver vs. the US. Katz also raised some other issues and which were cleared by the elaboration of the court that the only exempted open fields are those that are fenced and also posted. However, privacy for the enclosed open fields is not provided except for those adjacent to the person’s home or house. Therefore, the activities in the enclosed open fields can be observed by the trespassers since privacy is not provided. Even in cases where a fence is erected too high, away from the sight of trespassers, the law does not limit a person from evaluating the enclosed area with a through-a-year fixed-wing aircraft flying in pilotable airspace (Dixon, 1989). Lastly, aerial photography of commercial buildings protected from the public’s view at a ground level is also permission (Dixon, 1989).
It is suspected that Officer Williams probably had felt the smelling of the items were emitting earlier since the case defendant owned waste that contained narcotic drugs. The trash was, however, within the surrounding environment of his house. The rhetorical part of it is that Officer Williams assigned the garbage collector a role in the process of carrying out the investigation. Verbally, Officer Williams informed the trash collector to separate the trash owned by the defendant from the rest since it was to be used in forthcoming days as evidence. It is at this point that Officer Martinez’ became part of the case investigation team. Officer Martinez’ analyzed the defendant’s trash, and he was able to identify items justifying the usage of narcotics (Johnson, 1994). The two police officers went to the affidavit desk to get a search warrant that allowed them to carry out further investigations at the defendant’s house. At the affidavit desk, they had to provide the already information they obtained from the trash to justify the issuance of the warrant. Upon getting the home search permit and beginning the investigation process, the officers ended up arresting the defendant after having found him in possession of quantities of cocaine and heroin. The defendant was arrested based on felony narcotics charges.