Content deleted Content added
Daniel Case (talk | contribs) →Rejections of doctrine by state courts: VT as well, it seems |
Daniel Case (talk | contribs) →Rejections of doctrine by state courts: start section on Vermont case |
||
Line 85:
From this Gillette derived a "simple and objective" rule: "A person who wishes to preserve a constitutionally protected privacy interest in land outside the curtilage must manifest an intention to exclude the public by erecting barriers to entry, such as fences, or by posting signs." He then applied the rule to the instant case and found that it did not apply to the Dixsons since the signs they had posted on the road to their house barred only hunting. "There was no objective reason for the officers to believe that ... other uses such as hiking were forbidden" since it was common in Oregon for those uses to take place on large tracts of privately owned land where it was not expressly forbidden. Therefore, having affirmed the appeals court's rejection of the open-fields doctrine, the state's Supreme Court reversed it on the specific issues of the case and affirmed the conviction.<ref name="Dixson Supreme Court 1023–24">''Dixson II'', 1023–24</ref>
===''State v. Kirchoff''===
A case that had begun before ''Oliver'' provided the [[Vermont Supreme Court]] with its opportunity to consider the open-fields doctrine almost a decade later. In 1982 Robert Kirchoff bought a {{convert|39|acre|ha|adj=on}} parcel in the town of [[Lincoln, Vermont]], posted it and filed a notice to that effect with the town clerk. He allowed some of his neighbors to ride their bicycles on trails that crossed the property, but otherwise did not allow any access.<ref name="People v. Kirchoff">{{cite court case|litigants=People v. Kirchoff|vol=587|reporter=[[Atlantic Reporter|A.2d]]|opinion=988|court=[[Vermont Supreme Court|Vt.]]|date=1988|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9401759424447139849|accessdate=October 1, 2019}}</ref>
Kirchoff had been living there for four years when the [[Addison County, Vermont|Addison County]] sheriff received a tip that he was growing marijuana on his land. The sheriff and another law enforcement officer went to a neighboring house, crossed a fence, and followed an old logging road past some old "no trespassing" signs. They left the road and found the growing cannabis plants in the woods roughly 100 yards (91 m) from his house, invisible from the road.<ref name="Kirchoff at 990">''Kirchoff'', at 990</ref>
The sheriff called in two other officers to keep an eye on the marijuana while they got a [[search warrant]]. Kirchoff went out to tend them at this point, and admitted to the officers that he had been growing them. When the sheriff returned, he and the police seized the plants and other evidence of the grow operation from Kirchoff's house.<ref name="Kirchoff at 990" />
===''People v. Scott''===
| |||