Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nebraska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Oliver v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2014Oliver involved two different marijuana patches, one on a farm and another “in the woods.”57 In light of Katz, the Court explained that the open fields doctrine “may be understood as providing that an individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of doors in fields, except in the area 49 See id. 50 See Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 , 104 S. Ct. 1735 , 80 L. 2014Oliver involved two different marijuana patches, one on a farm and another “in the woods.”57 In light of Katz, the Court explained that the open fields doctrine “may be understood as providing that an individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of doors in fields, except in the area 49 See id. 50 See Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 , 104 S. Ct. 1735 , 80 L. | 2 | 5 |
State v. Codygreen2 sentences2005Under the open fields doctrine, “‘[o]pen fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the [Fourth] Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance.’ ” State v. Cody, 248 Neb. 683, 695 , 539 N.W.2d 18, 26 (1995), quoting Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 , 104 S. Ct. 1735 , 80 L. 2005Under the open fields doctrine, “‘[o]pen fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the [Fourth] Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance.’ ” State v. Cody, 248 Neb. 683, 695 , 539 N.W.2d 18, 26 (1995), quoting Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 , 104 S. Ct. 1735 , 80 L. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Joseph R. Redmongreen1 sentence1999See U.S. v. Redmon, 138 F.3d 1109 (7th Cir. 1998) (Flaum, J., concurring) (stating that curtilage is descriptive, rather than prescriptive, term in our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hodgegreen2 sentences1988In State v. Hodge and Carpenter, 225 Neb. 94, 102 , 402 N. W.2d 867, 873-74 (1987), the court, in quoting from State v. Havlat, 222 Neb. 554 , 385 N.W.2d 436 (1986), stated: “[A] person’s capacity to claim the protection of Article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution as to unreasonable searches and seizures, like its counterpart, the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, depends upon whether the person who claims such a protection has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.” In State v. Havlat, supra, the court announced the open fields doctrine and cited as authority O 1988In State v. Hodge and Carpenter, 225 Neb. 94, 102 , 402 N. W.2d 867, 873-74 (1987), the court, in quoting from State v. Havlat, 222 Neb. 554 , 385 N.W.2d 436 (1986), stated: “[A] person’s capacity to claim the protection of Article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution as to unreasonable searches and seizures, like its counterpart, the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, depends upon whether the person who claims such a protection has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.” In State v. Havlat, supra, the court announced the open fields doctrine and cited as authority O | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hester v. United States
green
2 sentences1995The marijuana patch is subject to the open fields doctrine that was first articulated in Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 59 , 44 S. Ct. 445 , 68 L. 1995The marijuana patch is subject to the open fields doctrine that was first articulated in Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 59 , 44 S. Ct. 445 , 68 L. | 2 | 1986–1995 |
Katz v. United States
green
2 sentences1986The U.S. Supreme Court first articulated the open fields doctrine in Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 59 , 44 S.Ct. 445, 446 , 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924): "[T]he special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their `persons, houses, papers, and effects,' is not extended to the open fields." Forty-three years later, in a telephone-booth electronic surveillance case, the same Court declared that the "Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. " (Emphasis supplied.) Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 511 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). 1986The U.S. Supreme Court first articulated the open fields doctrine in Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 59 , 44 S.Ct. 445, 446 , 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924): "[T]he special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their `persons, houses, papers, and effects,' is not extended to the open fields." Forty-three years later, in a telephone-booth electronic surveillance case, the same Court declared that the "Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. " (Emphasis supplied.) Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 511 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). | 2 | 1981–1986 |
State v. Huff
green
2 sentences2014State v. Huff, 279 Neb. 68 , 776 N.W.2d 498 (2009). [12] Having found that the warrantless search was under- taken with probable cause, we need not address the lower courts’ findings that the open fields exception to the prohibi- tion of warrantless searches and seizures existed in this case. 2014State v. Huff, 279 Neb. 68 , 776 N.W.2d 498 (2009). [12] Having found that the warrantless search was under- taken with probable cause, we need not address the lower courts’ findings that the open fields exception to the prohibi- tion of warrantless searches and seizures existed in this case. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Havlat
green
2 sentences1988In State v. Hodge and Carpenter, 225 Neb. 94, 102 , 402 N. W.2d 867, 873-74 (1987), the court, in quoting from State v. Havlat, 222 Neb. 554 , 385 N.W.2d 436 (1986), stated: “[A] person’s capacity to claim the protection of Article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution as to unreasonable searches and seizures, like its counterpart, the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, depends upon whether the person who claims such a protection has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.” In State v. Havlat, supra, the court announced the open fields doctrine and cited as authority O 1988In State v. Hodge and Carpenter, 225 Neb. 94, 102 , 402 N. W.2d 867, 873-74 (1987), the court, in quoting from State v. Havlat, 222 Neb. 554 , 385 N.W.2d 436 (1986), stated: “[A] person’s capacity to claim the protection of Article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution as to unreasonable searches and seizures, like its counterpart, the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, depends upon whether the person who claims such a protection has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.” In State v. Havlat, supra, the court announced the open fields doctrine and cited as authority O | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Rakas v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1981Ed. 2d 576 (1967); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 , 99 S. Ct. 421 , 58 L. 1981Ed. 2d 576 (1967); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 , 99 S. Ct. 421 , 58 L. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.