Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
United States v. Homer Hoskins and John Hoskins
United States v. Homer Hoskins & John Hoskins, 735 F.2d 1006 (6th Cir. 1984)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1984-06-08
- Topic
- litigation
NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge. This case is currently before the Court upon the consolidated appeals of Homer and Jobn f°skins fr°m their jury convicÜ°ns for the manufacture and possession of “^uaif wkhfhemtentto dis nbute m ™lal0n of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Upon mitia1 consideration, this Court ordered ^ ”stant actl0nbe beld m abeyance fnáin% the Supreme Court s review of our Oliver v. United States, 686 F.2d 356 (6th Cir.1982).
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Homer Hoskins and John Hoskins. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 6 opinions
UNITED STATES v. HOSKINS,735 F.2d 1006(6th Cir. 1984)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. HOMER HOSKINS AND JOHN
HOSKINS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Nos. 81-5864, 81-5865.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued July 29, 1982.
Decided June 8, 1984.
Joseph Famularo, U.S. Atty., Barbara B. Edelman, James Zerhusen (argued), Asst. U.S. Attys., Lexington, Ky., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before JONES and CONTIE, Circuit Judges, and NICHOLS, Senior Circuit Judge.fn*
[2] The facts relevant to this appeal are largely uncontroverted. Acting on a tip from an anonymous informant, the Kentucky state police flew over appellants' property searching for marijuana plants. On July 31, 1981, the police spotted what they believed to be a marijuana patch. On August 4, 1981, several members of the state police and a german shepard travelled over a mountain and through a hollow toward the rear of the Hoskins' property. A private road in front of the property contained a posted, but overgrown "no-trespassing" sign.
[3] The officers passed by the sign on to the Hoskins' property. They approached John Hoskins, who informed them that he owned the property and allowed them to search the area. He stated that he believed that one of the officers, Detective Loomis, knew the contours of his property. The officersPage 1007also approached Homer Hoskins, who gave them permission to search for marijuana and assisted them in finding the illicit crop.
[4] The officers found a large marijuana plot, located about one-hundred yards from John Hoskins' house. The patch was not visible from the public road, but could be seen by any one approaching the Hoskins' homes. Federal agents, acting without a warrant, seized approximately two-thousand marijuana plants from appellants' land.
[5] After they were indicted for violating21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), appellants moved to suppress the evidence of marijuana. The district court denied that motion. Appellants were then convicted by a jury of manufacturing and possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute. Appellant's sole contention on appeal is that the agents' warrantless search and seizure of marijuana plants on their land violated the Fourth Amendment.
[6] We now are forced to reject that contention in light of the Supreme Court's decision inUnited States v. Oliver,___ U.S. ___,104 S.Ct. 1735,80 L.Ed. 214(1984). InOlivertwo officers of the Kentucky State Police Department, acting on tips that marijuana was growing on petitioner's farm, walked toward the suspect field, passed a locked gate with a "No Trespassing Sign", ignored verbal warnings and found incriminating marijuana plants. The Supreme Court adopted this Court's analysis inOliverand held "that the government's intrusion upon the open fields is not one of those `unreasonable searches,' proscribed by the text of the Fourth Amendment." Relying uponKatz v. UnitedStates,389 U.S. 347,88 S.Ct. 507,19 L.Ed.2d 576(1967), the Court found no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in open fields which are not "surrounding and associated with the home." ___ U.S. at ___,104 S.Ct. at 1740. Although the Supreme Court has often in past cases expanded the plain meaning of the Fourth Amendment's protection of persons, houses, papers and effects to include, for example, a public telephone booth and a public conversation,see Katz,389 U.S. at 347,88 S.Ct. at 507, and has exempted from its current holding "curtileges,"see Oliver,___ U.S. at ___,104 S.Ct. at 1742, the Court decided in this particular case to restrict the Amendment's scope to those items explicitly mentioned. An open field, the Court stated, is not mentioned in and therefore not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
[7] In addition, according toOliver,society apparently is no longer prepared to recognize as "reasonable,"see Katz,389 U.S. at 361,88 S.Ct. at 516(Harlan, J. concurring), any privacy interest in some parts of a landowner's property. Over a vigorous dissent which argued that the expectation of privacy in one's property is rooted deeply in (1) positive law, citingRakas v.Illinois,439 U.S. at 153,99S.Ct. at 435(2) the private manner in which such property is used, citingRakas,439 U.S. 128,153,99 S.Ct. 421,435,58 L.Ed.2d 387(1978) (Powell, J. concurring);United States v. Chadwick,433 U.S. at 1,13,97 S.Ct. 2476,2484,53 L.Ed.2d 538(1977) and (3) the owner's manifestation of the privacy of that property, citingRawlingsv. Kentucky,448 U.S. 98,100 S.Ct. 2556,65 L.Ed.2d 633(1980), the Court decided that individuals in this country can now only expect privacy in an area "adjacent to the home." ___ U.S. at ___,104 S.Ct. at 1742.
[8]Oliverforces us to conclude, therefore, that the Fourth Amendment does not protect fields which are open and not adjacent to an otherwise protected area. Hence, the Hoskins' reliance upon the Fourth Amendment on appeal from their jury convictions for violating § 841(a)(1) is, at this moment in the Supreme Court's understanding of that Amendment's protections, misplaced. The facts of the case before us fall within the sweep ofOliver'slanguage. As inOliver,law enforcement authorities entered the Hoskins' land, passed an overgrown "no trespass" sign and discovered marijuana in a field which was open and not in any way "adjacent" to an area protected by the Fourth Amendment.SeeOliver,___ U.S. at ___,104 S.Ct. at 1742. Because the agents discovered marijuanaPage 1008in a field, both open and non-adjacent to an area in which the Hoskins have a reasonable expectation of privacy, their search for and seizure of that evidence, we are compelled to find, is not prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the district court properly denied the Hoskins' motion to suppress the evidence seized pursuant toOliver's"open fields" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. Accordingly the district court's judgments are hereby AFFIRMED.
[11] I would have held, therefore, that the marijuana was in "plain view," just as if it could have been seen from the highway and one who places an article in such plain view has no reasonable expectation that it will not be seen. I would have thought, thoughOliverwas decided by divided tribunals, both in this and in the Supreme Court, some of the dissenters in either place might reasonably have been persuaded by the factual differences in this case. It was the major premise of both dissents thatOliver,by "no trespassing" signs, locked gates, etc., did what he could to assure privacy, and presumably the result would have been different, in the eyes of dissenters, had he not done so. The defendants here did nothing to keep helicopters away, and nothing to conceal what might have been seen from them, the plantation being wide-open to aerial view. The marijuana plant is distinctive. Once one is seen, others are readily recognized.
- Honorable Philip Nichols, Jr., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation. Assumed Senior Status October 1, 1983. ↩