Student Review:

     Saltzburg finds that although drug use has become a major problem in America, the decision of the Supreme Court in Oliver v. United States weakens the protection of the Fourth Amendment and jeopardizes fundamental constitutional principles.
      Oliver presented two cases before the Supreme Court.  In the first, Ray Oliver was suspected of growing marijuana on his farm from an anonymous tip.  Police officers entered a private road, passed four No Trespassing signs, and entered a locked fence to search the property. Likewise, in Richard Thornton's case, officers entered private property by passing a stone wall, No Trespassing signs, and a barbed wire fence to search for marijuana.  The Oliver court decided that such searches did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
      The Oliver court relied on Hester v. United States which established that the Fourth Amendment did not protect property owners from a search of an open field.  However, the Court�s reliance on a 1924 case was unexpected, especially in the light of Katz v. United States.  In Katz, the Court held that recording a conversation held in a public phone booth with an electronic listening devise was in violation of the Fourth Amendment.  Katz stated that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.  If individuals intended to preserve an area as private, it was constitutionally protected.  In light of the Katz decision, the Oliver Court could have easily held that fenced fields were also protected under the Fourth Amendment, but instead chose not to.
      Saltzburg argues that an individual should be able to use their exclusive right and control of property to keep areas of land private.  Other areas that do not fall into the specific language of the Fourth Amendment (persons, houses, papers and effects) such as churches and business also share protection against unreasonable searches.  Saltzburg's concern is that under the decision of Oliver, areas that are fenced and marked private are not safe from unreasonable searches and can be forcibly invaded.  Saltzburg suggests that the rule should allow individuals to mark their land as private property, and thus be protected under the Fourth Amendment.  The decision in Oliver eliminates this basic protection from the Fourth Amendment.  Even in light of the serious drug problem facing the nation, the open fields doctrine presents too great a destruction of the Constitution's basic liberties.

Article Summary by: Corrie Noir
Wake Forest University School of Law 1999