Police Blotter: Murderer nabbed via tracking, Web search

(continued from previous page)

The trial judge found that the military investigators followed procedures when placing the tracking device on Davidson's car, not least because they consulted with the U.S. attorney and obtained approval from their regional commander. The request for the order says it "only requires a region commander's approval" and that "no search warrant or search authorization is required, as long as the installation and monitoring of the device is conducted in a public area."

In terms of the Fourth Amendment, Davidson conceded that the feds could track her on a public road. But once she turned off public roads, onto the ranch property, passed through a locked gate, and drove to the stock pond, she claimed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Both the trial court and the appeals court disagreed. The appeals court said there was insufficient evidence to show that she should have an expectation of privacy on the property. What's more, it said nobody should have any expectation of privacy in an "open field" and upheld her conviction.

Excerpts from Texas Appeals Court's opinion: In any event, the government's intrusion upon the open fields is not one of those "unreasonable searches" proscribed by the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 9. The Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 9 accord special protection to people in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, but that protection does not extend to "open fields."

The "open fields" doctrine allows a law enforcement officer to enter and search an area of land without a warrant. An "open field" need not be "open" or a "field" as those terms are commonly used; the term "open field" may be defined as any unoccupied or undeveloped area outside the curtilage of a dwelling. An individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of doors in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home, i.e., the curtilage.

The court distinguished the "open fields" of "the vast expanse of some western ranches" or woods from the "curtilage," the land immediately surrounding and associated with the home. The court concluded that "from the text of the Fourth Amendment, and from the historical and contemporary understanding of its purposes, that an individual has no legitimate expectation that open fields will remain free from warrantless intrusion by government officers."

Appellant failed to present any evidence during the suppression hearing to demonstrate that the monitoring of her vehicle implicated a reasonable expectation of privacy. The evidence at the hearing showed that the rural ranch property in question falls squarely within the definition of "open fields," in which appellant is not entitled to an expectation of privacy. That the property was fenced and gated does not create an expectation of privacy that society recognizes as legitimate and reasonable.

The record does not show that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the police did not violate appellant's reasonable expectation of privacy by monitoring the tracking device on Sheen's property, and the evidence obtained through use of the device was properly admitted. Having overruled appellant's sole issue, we affirm the trial court's order denying appellant's motion to suppress and the judgments of conviction.

More from News.com on this story's topics

Search

Create an email alert | RSS feed

Defense/military

Create an email alert | RSS feed

Privacy

Create an email alert | RSS feed

Law enforcement

RSS feed

See more CNET content tagged:
Police Blotter, Internet search, police, agent, GPS