United States v. Homer Hoskins and John Hoskins
735 F.2d 1006
6th Cir.
1984
Check Treatment

*1 CONTIE, Cirсuit Before JONES Court States Judges, and Senior Circuit Judge.* 29, 1982. Argued July JONES, Judge. R. NATHANIEL June Decided currently This case is before Court appeals of Homer the cоnsolidated their jury fr°m convic Jobn f°skins possession Ü°ns for the manufacture and dis m wkhfhemtentto nbute “^uaif § 841(a)(1). Upon of 21 ™lal0n consideration, mitia1 this Court ordered abeyance m ”stant actl0nbe beld ^ s review of our fnáin% (6th v. United States, 686 F.2d Cir.1982). lightOliver, disposition Courts appellants to affirm now comPelled 10ns* convic appeal are The facts relevant to this Acting tip largely uncontroverted. a informant, anonymous the Ken- from an over tucky police state flew marijuana plants. searching for property July police spotted On marijuana patch. to be On they believed several members August german shepard police and a travelled state through mountain and a hollow to- over a property. A ward the rеar of Hoskins’ private road in front of the con- posted, overgrown no-tres- turned sign. passing passed by officers The property. They approached John Hoskins’ he who informed them that owned and allowed them search that he He stated believed Loomis, officers, knew Dеtective one of of his officers contours * Jr., Nichols, by designation. Philip Assumed Senior Status October United States Honorable Circuit, Appeals sitting for the Federal *2 Katz, see approached gave 347, Homer 507, also 389 U.S. at 88 S.Ct. at permission marijuana them to search for exempted and has from holding its current — Oliver, finding crop. and assisted them in the illicit see “curtileges,” at -, U.S. 1742, 104 at S.Ct. the Court in decided this large marijuana The officers found a particular case to restrict the Amendment’s plot, yards from located one-hundred scope to those explicitly items mentioned. patch Hoskins’ house. The not John field, open An statеd, the Court is not road, public from the visible be in mentioned and protected therefore not by any approaching one seen by the Fourth Amendment. agents, acting homes. Federal without a warrant, approximately seized two-thou- addition, Oliver, In according society marijuanа plants sand from apparently longer prepared is no recog- land. Katz, “reasonable,” see nize as 389 U.S. at 361, (Harlan, 88 S.Ct. at 516 concurring), J. they violating 21 Aftеr were indicted for any privacy interest parts § some of a 841(a)(1),appellants sup- moved to landowner’s vigorous Over a dis- press the еvidence of The dis- argued sent which expectation ‍‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‍that the Appellants trict court denied that motion. privacy in one’s is deeply rooted by jury were then convicted of manufac- (1) Illinois, positive citing Rakas v. turing possessing marijuana and with the 153, (2) 439 U.S. at 99 S.Ct. at Appellant’s intent 435 to distribute. solе con- private manner in which appeal agents’ such tention on is that war- is used, citing Rakas, 128, 153, 439 marijuana rantless search and seizure of U.S. 99 421, 435, (1978) (Pоw- S.Ct. 58 plants on their L.Ed.2d 387 land violated the Fourth ell, United States v. Chad- concurring); J. Amendment. wick, 1, 13, 433 U.S. at 97 S.Ct. reject We now are forced to that conten (1977) (3) 53 L.Ed.2d 538 and the owner’s light of the Supreme tion Court’s deci privacy manifestation of the proper- of that — Oliver, ‍‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‍sion in United States v. U.S. ty, citing Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. -, 1735, (1984). 104 S.Ct. 80 L.Ed. 214 (1980), 100 S.Ct. 65 L.Ed.2d 633 Oliver two оfficers of the Kentucky decided that individuals in this Department, acting tips State Police country only expect can now in an marijuana growing petitioner’s that — “adjacent area to the home.” at U.S. farm, field, suspect walked toward the -, at S.Ct. passed gate Trespass a locked with a “No ing Sign”, ignored warnings conclude, therefore, Oliver verbal forces us incriminating marijuana plants. found pro- the Fourth Amendment does not Supreme adopted this analy open Court’s tect fields which are adjacent and not Oliver govern sis in and held “that protected Henсe, to an otherwise upon open ment’s intrusion fields is not Hoskins’ reliance the Fourth Amend- searches,’ one of those pro ‘unreasonаble appeal jury ment on from their convictions § by scribed the text of violating 841(a)(1) is, the Fourth Amend at this moment Katz v. Relying upon ment.” Supreme understanding Court’s States, 389 U.S. 88 S.Ct. 19 that protections, misplaced. Amendment’s (1967), L.Ed.2d 576 the Court found no The facts of the case before us fall within expectation оf privacy” open sweep “reasonable language. inAs “surrounding fields which are not and asso law enforcement authorities en- — at -, lаnd, ciated with the home.” passed overg- tered the Hoskins’ an Although trespass” 104 S.Ct. at 1740. rown and discovered past expanded Court has often cаses in a open field which was plain meaning any way “adjacent” of the Fourth Amendment’s not in pro- to an area protection houses, persons, papers by the Fourth Amendment. See Oli- tected — public ver, include, example, -, effects to at S.Ct. at 1742. conversation, telеphone public and a agents booth Because the discovered thought, not seen. I would field, non-adjaeent to an will open and in а both by was decided tri- have a reason- divided the Hoskins area in which bunals, in this and in their search for both able Court, evidence, are com- sоme of the dissenters in either and seizure of might reasonably find, by place per- prohibited not pelled to conclude, by there- suaded the factual differences in We this Amendment. Fourth *3 major premise properly denied case. It was the fore, court of both the district Oliver, by supрress trespassing” the evi- dissents that motion to etc., “open signs, gates, did locked what he could pursuant dence seized presumably Amend- to аssure the re- exception to the Fourth fields” different, Accordingly eyes sult would have been requirement. ment’s warrant dissenters, hereby had he not dоne so. The judgments the district court’s ‍‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‍nothing keep here did heli- defendants Affirmed. copters away, nothing conceal might them, plan- have been seen from Judge, concur- Senior wide-open being tation to aerial view. The ring. marijuana plant is distinctive. Once one is judgment and in the reа- I concur in the seen, readily recognized. others are except I not use given sons would to describe “compelled” or “forced” words impact Court’s Oliver thinking. “Led” would upon my

decision my It is not true that more to taste. spoken, highest having

but for our tribunal gone opposite way. Actu-

I would important

ally, there was an difference possibility the cases. The MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, Ruth M. the air plantations being detected from speculation yet re- a mere tending ferred to there аs to undermine HEALTH AND SECRETARY OF grower expecting reasonableness of the SERVICES, HUMAN activity, illicit his even Defendant-Appellee. fact such surveillance did nоt occur. origin this case it did occur and was the No. 83-1114. suspicions. enforcement officer’s would, United States Court of I What was seen from the air think, probable should have afforded cause applied By

if a had for. warrant been Argued May it, modern aviation as I understand go aircrаft ‍‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‍are free to come at over 500 Decided June trespass upon rights feet without sug- no

the surface landowner. There was

gestion or the enforcement officers used any sophisticat-

needed kind of unusual or equipment

ed to detect nothing

There is clandestine or secret helicopter thundering overhead. held, therefore,

I would have view,” “plain just as if ‍‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‍it highway seen from the places plain

and one an article in such

view has no that it reasonable