Case Citator › Hester v. United States

Hester v. United States

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Criticized by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
265 U.S. 57
Decided
Confirmed treatments
4
Flagged citations read
36 of 36
Citing cases (total)
36
Treatment dates
1971–1981
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. All 36 flagged citations concerning Hester v. United States have been read. Four adverse treatments are listed below.
More on how this was screened

The Oregon Court of Appeals criticized its categorical open-fields rationale, and the Florida Supreme Court confined that rationale for a fenced and posted field. Another court questioned its continued force, and a district court limited its reference to abandonment. These decisions preceded Oliver v. United States (1984), in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed Hester's federal open-fields rule.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

36 later cases cite Hester v. United States; 36 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Hester v. United States?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Criticized

  • The court criticized Hester's categorical open-fields rationale as inconsistent with later Supreme Court privacy decisions, while finding no protected interest in the field searched.

    State v. Stanton · Oregon Court of Appeals · filed

    We note that Hester was cited with approval in Katz by both Mr. Justice Stewart’s majority opinion, 389 US at 351, n 8, and Mr. Justice Harlan’s concurring opinion, 389 US at 360. However, the idea that an open field can never be protected is inconsistent with the balance of those opinions.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The court limited Hester's open-fields rule for a fenced, locked, and posted field and suppressed evidence from the warrantless search.

    State v. Brady · Supreme Court of Florida · filed

    Petitioner argues that the open fields doctrine remains viable, and that there is no constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy in an open field. Although the Hester opinion has not been overruled, subsequent opinions indicate that the open fields doctrine cannot be used as carte blanche for a warrantless search simply because the location searched is not part of a dwelling or its adjacent curtilage.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court read Hester's open-fields rationale as its holding and declined to treat its reference to abandonment as authority for deeming luggage abandoned.

    United States v. Tolbert · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · filed

    If Hester stood for the first proposition, it would provide strong support for the government’s position that defendant “abandoned” her luggage. I conclude, however, that it is explained better by the second theory. The language of the opinion lends itself more readily to that interpretation. The final sentences quoted above sound like the holding. The reference to “abandonment” appears to have been just a loose description of the facts.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Questioned

  • The court questioned whether a later Supreme Court decision had silently overruled Hester's open-fields rule, without deciding the issue.

    Commonwealth v. Wagner · Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County, Pennsylvania · filed

    The question of warrantless searches of open fields owned by defendant has not been directly before the United States Supreme Court since Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (1924). There it was held that Fourth Amendment protection did not extend to “open fields,” i.e., privately owned grounds or out buildings which are not located in close proximity to the owner’s dwelling. It is questionable whether or not Hester was overruled, sub silentio, by Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234 (1968).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Hester v. United States and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace