If it pleases the court,

Hello Your Honors, My name is Michael von Heesen, and I am here representing
Thom Yorke in the matter brought forth to you today.
At this point I would like to request that 2 minutes time be reserved for rebuttal.
---------------------------Case Facts--------------------------------------------------------This case begins with an anonymous tip to Officer Dolan and his partner regarding
the actions of a drug dealer. With little more than just that information, the officers
took it upon themselves to perform a search of Thom Yorkes residence, a tent
structure erected in the Gainesville forest, completely unwarranted and entirely
unlawfully. His constitutional right to privacy was violated and ignored. During their
search they found two illegal substances and immediately arrested Thom Yorke.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------We are asking that your honors overrule the conviction placed upon Thom Yorke from
the lower district court and allow him a new trial with the evidence found from the
illegal search not being admissible.
As stated in Katz, the fourth amendment protects people not places in addition it
also laid out a two prong test which consisted of (1) First that the a person exhibited
an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy Which Thom Yorke did by zipping
up his tent which would be the equivalent of shutting his front door. And (2) second is
that the expectation is one that society is prepared to find reasonable
(Objectively) which society does finds it reasonable for someones home to be
private.
The trial court on page 3 of the record established that Mr. Yorke had a subjective
expectation of privacy and due to it being his home, then it is awarded the
expectation of privacy objectively because is it not reasonable to expect your
home to be private, The council for the state may try to assert that it was not a
home, but even in that case if it were to be regarded as a large movable closed off
box of his personal items, or even a large container, which you have closed off
from the public, would it not be reasonable to assume the contents are to be
private?
Once this court finds that both parts of Katz have been established then it would be
clear that the search of Yorkes belongings were unconstitutional and whatever was
found during the search in question should be inadmissible.
Supreme Court Cases

Katz v. United States a twofold requirement. First that a person have exhibited an actual expectation of privacy and,
second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. 4th amendment protects people
not place. What a person knowingly exposes to the public is not subject to the 4th amendment protection.
Appropriate action for Agent Dolan would have been to seek a warrant based on facts.
Oliver v United States open fields doctrine The issue reviewed was whether the human relations that creates the
desire for privacy take place in an open field: Yorkes tent home was set up in the outdoors, but the area was closed to
public view, not open.

9th Circuit Court of Appeal (Fed Level)

US v Gooch the fact that a tent can be moved is not enough to remove 4 th amend. Protection; tents are protected
under the 4th amend. like a more permanent structure. The tent may have been pithed on public property, but the contents
within it were not public in any sense of the word. A tent is more like a large movable container, and the 4th amend.
protects expectations of privacy in movable, closed containers.
See also Mooney People v. Thomas.
US v Sandoval - the court ruled that 4th amend. rights for tent-dweller survived both a tent located on public property
without permission and expiration of a camping permit.

10th Circuit Court of Appeals (Fed Level)

US v. Ruckman Ruckman was a trespasser on federal lands. A warrant was issued for his arrest when he failed to appear
in court. After his arrest the authorities returned to his cave to remove Ruckmans belongings. In cleaning out, the authorities
found an antipersonnel booby trap. He was a felon on the run with an arrest warrant out The cave had no way of
being closed off from the public.

Fed Case in Florida

Pottinger v. Miami Society is prepared to recognize plaintiffs expectations of privacy in their personal property as
reasonable. Just because a man is homeless does not mean he is not afforded the same 4 th amend. protection.

Not Fed Case

State v. Cleator Def. was camped on city property, Not a campsite. Without permission, and could therefor not reasonably expect
his tent would remain undisturbed. The officers looked into the open tent and could see from the opening stolen property.
Kelly v. State walls of canvas rather than stone should not mean less protection under 4 th amend. from govt intrusion.
Commonwealth v Cameron Under fed law, def. had no reasonable expectation of privacy in an abandoned house. Under Penn Law,
it is unreasonable to expect privacy in an abandoned structure that is not ones place of dwelling.
State v. Mooney - a man placed his items in a closed piece of luggage and that manifests an expectation of privacy that the contents
will remain free from public view and scrutiny/ police need a warrant to get in to see the contents
People v Nishi TENT case, def. was told to leave several times. Bad faith not leaving property. Rule: if occupier of land has no legal
right to occupy the property AND is occupying in bad faith, the occupier has no objective expectation of privacy. Def. was camped in
prohibited location; items seized were located outside of tent exposed to public view.
People v. Thomas - California man asked to leave his box multiple times was found to not really have protection because the box did
not close on all sides
California v. Greenwood US Supreme Court Trash bags the have evidence in them Police cannot be expected to avert their eyes
from evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the public.
US Supreme Court - Stoner v. Calirfornia (Hotel Room case)
6th Cir Federal US v Rigsby (armed ind. Items seized outside tent,
police protective sweep of area
US v Botelho US District of Hawaii (Landlord lets in police, they
seize gun)

US v Panzo 2nd Cir. federal (Occupancy of room expires, guest

loses rights to privacy within the room)
State v. Dias What a person knowingly exposes to the public
Amezquita - Bad faith, repeatedly asked to leave.