Share to: share facebook share twitter share wa share telegram print page

United States v. Burton

United States v. Burton
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Full case name United States v. Burton
ArguedApril 20, 1989
DecidedJanuary 17, 1990
Citation894 F.2d 188
Case history
Subsequent historyRehearing denied, March 22, 1990; cert. denied, 498 U.S. 857 (1990)
Court membership
Judges sittingNathaniel R. Jones, Albert J. Engel Jr., George E. Woods (E.D. Mich.)
Case opinions
MajorityEngel, joined by Woods
ConcurrenceJones
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. IV

United States v. Burton, 894 F.2d 188 (6th Cir.),[1] cert. denied, 498 U.S. 857 (1990) is a United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit court decision relating to the open fields doctrine limiting the scope of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.[2]

Acting on information that the defendant was cultivating marijuana, two members of the Kentucky State Police, without a search warrant, entered on to the defendant's farm in Warren County, Kentucky.[3] In order to enter the property the two officers climbed over two series of fences which had "No Trespassing" signs posted all around them.[3]

Upon discovering large quantities of marijuana being grown, the defendant was arrested and charged with four drug related counts.[3] The defendant was convicted of a lesser included offense, of which he appealed challenging that his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated.[4] The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, stating that the case was too factually similar to the Supreme Court's ruling in Oliver v. United States to justify exclusion of the evidence.[5] The Court of Appeals stated:

The only difference between the cases is that here the police climbed over a fence and a locked gate, whereas in Oliver, the officers went around a locked gate. Given the cited language from Oliver it is evident that this distinction is not of constitutional significance. The same is true of Burton's claim that the police entry onto his land constituted a trespass under Kentucky State law. The Supreme Court, in Oliver, addressed this issue, in the identical context of Kentucky law, observing in the case of open fields, the general rights of property protected by the common law of trespass have little or no relevance to the applicability of the Fourth Amendment.[5]

References

The citations in this article are written in Bluebook style. Please see the talk page for more information.

  1. ^ United States v. Burton, 894 F.2d 188 (6th Cir. 1990).
  2. ^ Burton, 894 F.2d at 191.
  3. ^ a b c Burton, 894 F.2d at 189.
  4. ^ Burton, 894 F.2d at 190.
  5. ^ a b Burton, 894 F.2d at 190-91.


Index: pl ar de en es fr it arz nl ja pt ceb sv uk vi war zh ru af ast az bg zh-min-nan bn be ca cs cy da et el eo eu fa gl ko hi hr id he ka la lv lt hu mk ms min no nn ce uz kk ro simple sk sl sr sh fi ta tt th tg azb tr ur zh-yue hy my ace als am an hyw ban bjn map-bms ba be-tarask bcl bpy bar bs br cv nv eml hif fo fy ga gd gu hak ha hsb io ig ilo ia ie os is jv kn ht ku ckb ky mrj lb lij li lmo mai mg ml zh-classical mr xmf mzn cdo mn nap new ne frr oc mhr or as pa pnb ps pms nds crh qu sa sah sco sq scn si sd szl su sw tl shn te bug vec vo wa wuu yi yo diq bat-smg zu lad kbd ang smn ab roa-rup frp arc gn av ay bh bi bo bxr cbk-zam co za dag ary se pdc dv dsb myv ext fur gv gag inh ki glk gan guw xal haw rw kbp pam csb kw km kv koi kg gom ks gcr lo lbe ltg lez nia ln jbo lg mt mi tw mwl mdf mnw nqo fj nah na nds-nl nrm nov om pi pag pap pfl pcd krc kaa ksh rm rue sm sat sc trv stq nso sn cu so srn kab roa-tara tet tpi to chr tum tk tyv udm ug vep fiu-vro vls wo xh zea ty ak bm ch ny ee ff got iu ik kl mad cr pih ami pwn pnt dz rmy rn sg st tn ss ti din chy ts kcg ve 
Prefix: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 
Kembali kehalaman sebelumnya