State v. Beane

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

State v. Beane

609 A.2d 950, 1992 R.I. LEXIS 146, 1992 WL 133376

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJune 15, 1992

DocketNo. 91-83-C.A.

StatusPublished

This text of 609 A.2d 950 (State v. Beane) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Beane, 609 A.2d 950, 1992 R.I. LEXIS 146, 1992 WL 133376 (R.I. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This case came before the court on May 4,1992, pursuant to an order directing both parties to appear and show cause why this appeal should not be denied and dismissed. The state had appealed from a Superior Court order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress.

After considering the arguments and memoranda of counsel, we are of the opinion that cause has been shown. We believe that the trial justice erroneously determined that the search of the defendant’s property and the seizure of the marijuana therefrom were unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution on the basis of a technical invalidity in the search warrant. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the “open fields” doctrine is applicable to land outside the curtilage and, as such, it does not fall within the scope of Fourth Amendment protection. Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 181, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 1742, 80 L.Ed.2d 214, 225-26 (1984); Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 59, 44 S.Ct. 445, 446, 68 L.Ed. 898, 898-99 (1924). Thus the facts of the case at bar did not require a search warrant to perform a permissible aerial surveillance of the defendant’s property. Nor was a warrant required to authorize seizure of the contraband.

Therefore, we sustain the state’s appeal and reverse the decision of the trial justice. The case is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This case came before the court on May 4,1992, pursuant to an order directing both parties to appear and show cause why this appeal should not be denied and dismissed. The state had appealed from a Superior Court order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress.

After considering the arguments and memoranda of counsel, we are of the opinion that cause has been shown. We believe that the trial justice erroneously determined that the search of the defendant’s property and the seizure of the marijuana therefrom were unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution on the basis of a technical invalidity in the search warrant. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the “open fields” doctrine is applicable to land outside the curtilage and, as such, it does not fall within the scope of Fourth Amendment protection. Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 181, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 1742, 80 L.Ed.2d 214, 225-26 (1984); Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 59, 44 S.Ct. 445, 446, 68 L.Ed. 898, 898-99 (1924). Thus the facts of the case at bar did not require a search warrant to perform a permissible aerial surveillance of the defendant’s property. Nor was a warrant required to authorize seizure of the contraband.

Therefore, we sustain the state’s appeal and reverse the decision of the trial justice. The case is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

609 A.2d 950, 1992 R.I. LEXIS 146, 1992 WL 133376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-beane-ri-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack