State v. Ferro
| Decision Date | 06 February 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 11078-8-III,11078-8-III |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Kathy Lynn FERRO, Appellant. |
Lewis M. Schrawyer, Spokane, for appellant.
Pamela Payne, Deputy Prosecutor, Colville, for respondent.
Kathy Ferro appeals her conviction for manufacturing a controlled substance, marijuana, contending the court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence.
On August 29, 1989, Stevens County sheriff's deputies were engaged in aerial surveillance of a rural area of the County, using an Air National Guard helicopter. The surveillance was part of the County's marijuana eradication program. While the helicopter was flying approximately 500 feet above the ground, one of the deputies saw marijuana growing in a wooded area. He advised sheriff's deputies on the ground and they, with further guidance from the helicopter, proceeded to a house near the location of the marijuana. At some point after the initial observation, the helicopter approached within 300 feet of the ground.
Deputies arrived at the house in a truck. Deputy Mugaas got out of the truck and spoke with Kathy Ferro. Two other deputies drove on across the property some distance, then walked past a garden area and into the woods where they came upon marijuana plants. They seized the growing plants and placed them in their truck.
Ms. Ferro contends the aerial surveillance from 300 to 500 feet above her property was an unconstitutional intrusion into her privacy. It is unnecessary for us to reach this issue.
Ms. Ferro further contends the subsequent entry onto and across the curtilage of her home, for the purpose of seizing contraband from the open fields beyond, was an unconstitutional violation of her constitutionally protected expectation of privacy.
Under the "open view doctrine" an officer's observation of evidence from a lawful vantage point is not, standing alone, a search subject to constitutional restrictions. State v. Seagull, 95 Wash.2d 898, 901, 632 P.2d 44 (1981). Such an observation may provide the basis for a search warrant. See State v. Petty, 48 Wash.App. 615, 740 P.2d 879, review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1012 (1987). Absent a warrant, the observation of contraband is insufficient to justify intrusion into a constitutionally protected area for the purpose of examining more closely, or seizing, the evidence which has been observed. Seagull, 95 Wash.2d at 906, 632 P.2d 44; see State v. Chrisman, 100 Wash.2d 814, 676 P.2d 419 (1984).
It is important to recognize, however, that this doctrine--the "open view" doctrine--applies to visual intrusions only, not to physical intrusions such as entries onto premises. Although a person may have no reasonable expectation of privacy protecting against police observation of objects in a window of his home, he does have a reasonable expectation of privacy protecting against police entry into his home.
State v. Bell, 108 Wash.2d 193, 206, 737 P.2d 254 (1987) (Pearson, C.J., concurring).
Police may enter areas of the curtilage impliedly open to the public,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Solberg
...threshold); State v. Seagull, 26 Wash.App. 58, 64, 613 P.2d 528 (1980), aff'd, 95 Wash.2d 898, 632 P.2d 44 (1981); State v. Ferro, 64 Wash.App. 181, 183, 824 P.2d 500, review denied, 119 Wash.2d 1005, 832 P.2d 488 (1992).11 Payton, 445 U.S. at 589, 100 S.Ct. at 1381.12 State v. Santiago, 22......
-
State v. Mierz
...vantage point is not a search at all, and such observations can be used as the basis for securing a search warrant. State v. Ferro, 64 Wash.App. 181, 182, 824 P.2d 500, review denied, 119 Wash.2d 1005, 832 P.2d 488 (1992). The mere observation of contraband, which is what occurred here, doe......
-
State v. Butts, No. 30585-2-II (WA 7/26/2005)
...he does not invade any privacy interest. State v. Hoke, 72 Wn. App. 869, 874, 866 P.2d 670 (1994) (citing State v. Ferro, 64 Wn. App. 181, 183, 824 P.2d 500 (1992)). `No trespassing' signs are not dispositive on the issue of privacy; they are only factors to be considered along with other m......
-
State v. C.B.
...and that “[t]he scope of the implied invitation is dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case”); State v. Ferro, 64 Wash.App. 181, 183, 824 P.2d 500 (1992) (holding that police officers trespassed when they went beyond the defendant's driveway, exceeding any implied license).4 ¶ ......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 1998 Update
...protected vantage point may, however, be used as a basis for securing a search warrant. State v. Ferro, 64 Wash. App. 181, 182, 824 P.2d 500, 501 If no entry or additional search is required, seizure of an object may be permissible if an officer is virtually certain that a container holds c......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 2005 Update
...preexisting hole between adjoining commercial storage units not a search when manager gave police permission to enter); State v. Ferro, 64 Wn. App. 181, 182, 824 P.2d 500, 501 If no entry or additional search is required, seizure of an object may be permissible if an officer is virtually ce......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 2013 Update
...legal vantage point outside of the defendant's fence did not justify an officer's warrantless entry on-to property); State v. Ferro, 64 Wn. App. 181, 182, 824 P.2d 500 (1992). In limited instances, seizure of an object may be permissible under the "open view" doctrine if an officer is reaso......