Hester v. United States

The Case: U.S. Supreme Court decision establishing the open fields doctrine that clarified and redefined an individual’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to privacy and unreasonable searches and seizures

Date: Decided on May 5, 1924

In this Prohibition-era case, the Supreme Court ruled that the protection of the Fourth Amendment to unreasonable searches and seizures of “‘persons, houses, papers, and effects’ is not extended to open fields.”

After the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment, which made the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol illegal, the demand for alcohol increased sharply, and illegal distilleries proliferated in order to provide alcohol to individuals and speakeasies (illegal bars). The widespread and lucrative trade in illegal alcohol prompted officials to increase efforts to enforce Prohibition laws. Investigations included observation of and surprise visits to suspected distilleries.

Law enforcement officers visited the family property of Mr. Hester to investigate possible violations of Prohibition laws. The officers observed Hester selling illegal alcohol outside a house and began to approach him. Hester ran across his family’s open field, smashing bottles as he went. He was apprehended, the broken bottles were recovered, and the officers identified the contents as illegal alcohol. Mr. Hester was convicted of concealing illegal distilled alcohol, and he appealed on the contention that law enforcement did not have a search or arrest warrant, which rendered the evidence inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment.

Hester’s appeal made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled against him, citing that limits to the protections of the Fourth Amendment to people in their “persons, houses, papers, and effects” do not extend to open fields. The police, therefore, did not need a search warrant, and Hester’s conviction was upheld.

Impact

Hester v.United States defined and limited the scope of unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court clarified that the words “persons, houses, papers, and effects” did not apply to open fields, and therefore law enforcement did not need a warrant before observing and ultimately arresting Hester for possessing and concealing alcohol. Later cases involving the open field doctrine have helped to further clarify the limits of the Fourth Amendment by defining “reasonable expectations of privacy” for outdoor activities. The debate is ongoing, with technological innovations such as telescopic lenses, aerial photography, and thermal imaging continuing to push the limits of privacy.

Bibliography

Clancy, Thomas K. The Fourth Amendment: Its History and Interpretation. Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press, 2008.

Sinclair, Andrew. Era of Excess: A Social History of the Prohibition Movement. New York: Harper & Row, 1964.