Criminal Procedure - Closing the Issue of the Open Fields Doctrine in Nebraska: State v. Havlat
Loading...
Authors
Bridgeford, Jerylnn R.
Issue Date
1987
Volume
20
Issue
Type
Journal Article
Language
Keywords
Alternative Title
Abstract
INTRODUCTION|In State v. Havlat, the Nebraska Supreme Court addressed the first impression issue of whether the search and seizure clause of the Nebraska constitution should be interpreted more broadly than the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution when applied to open field searches. The United States Supreme Court has held, and reaffirmed in Oliver v. United States, that the fourth amendment affords no protection from searches and seizures occurring in open fields.|The Nebraska Supreme Court followed the United States Supreme Court's lead and held in Havlat that [c]oncerning the open fields doctrine, our state Constitution does not afford more protection than does the fourth amendment to the federal Constitution. The court concluded that "no constitutional protection attaches to... activities occurring in the open fields." Thus, in Nebraska, police may enter and search open fields without probable cause or a warrant.|Because the Nebraska Supreme Court in Havlat patterned its interpretation of article I, section 7 of the Nebraska Constitution after the United States Supreme Court's construction of the fourth amendment, it is important to examine the "open fields doctrine" as it developed under this amendment. An understanding of the history of the fourth amendment and the "open fields doctrine" brings to light possible criticisms and alternatives to the Havlat decision...
Description
Citation
20 Creighton L. Rev. 569 (1986-1987)
Publisher
Creighton University School of Law