The Open Fields Doctrine: New Limitations on Environmental Surveillance
By Laura M. Tillitt
INTRODUCTION
In the past two decades legal commentators have noted that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) activities might violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Although traditionally limited to criminal procedure, Fourth Amendment concerns have arisen regarding the EPA's “environmental surveillance” of privately owned commercial property. However, claimants challenging the EPA's actions have enjoyed little success due to Fourth Amendment exceptions such as the “open fields” doctrine. Now, two federal district court memoranda opinions have begun to draw boundaries for the EPA's environmental surveillance, restricting under the Fourth Amendment the EPA's ability to take soil or groundwater samples. In Reeves Brothers, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Chief Judge Jackson L. Kiser of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia found that despite the open fields doctrine, the EPA violated the Fourth Amendment when it conducted a warrantless inspection of private commercial property without consent. Judge Kiser found in Reeves II that the Fourth Amendment was applicable to environmental investigations and, although the EPA's search “indisputably” violated the Fourth Amendment, Reeves Brothers failed to establish that the EPA had a policy of conducting unconstitutional environmental surveillance. Therefore, he denied Reeves Brothers' claim for injunctive relief against the EPA. However, he also added that if the EPA continues to conduct warrantless searches, he or any other court should be persuaded that the EPA pursues a policy of illegal searches worthy of enjoinment.
Part II of this Note outlines the statutory authority for environmental surveillance and the authority that limits the EPA's actions in this area. Next, the Note explores the case law prior to the Reeves decisions suggesting that individuals were practically powerless to challenge EPA inspections under the Fourth Amendment due to the open fields exception to the Fourth Amendment. Part III discusses the events leading up to the suit filed by Reeves Brothers, as well as Chief Judge Kiser's legal analysis in the case. Finally, Part IV concludes by discussing the likely effects the Reeves decisions will have on the activities of environmental regulatory agencies in the future.
In the past two decades legal commentators have noted that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) activities might violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Although traditionally limited to criminal procedure, Fourth Amendment concerns have arisen regarding the EPA's “environmental surveillance” of privately owned commercial property. However, claimants challenging the EPA's actions have enjoyed little success due to Fourth Amendment exceptions such as the “open fields” doctrine. Now, two federal district court memoranda opinions have begun to draw boundaries for the EPA's environmental surveillance, restricting under the Fourth Amendment the EPA's ability to take soil or groundwater samples. In Reeves Brothers, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Chief Judge Jackson L. Kiser of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia found that despite the open fields doctrine, the EPA violated the Fourth Amendment when it conducted a warrantless inspection of private commercial property without consent. Judge Kiser found in Reeves II that the Fourth Amendment was applicable to environmental investigations and, although the EPA's search “indisputably” violated the Fourth Amendment, Reeves Brothers failed to establish that the EPA had a policy of conducting unconstitutional environmental surveillance. Therefore, he denied Reeves Brothers' claim for injunctive relief against the EPA. However, he also added that if the EPA continues to conduct warrantless searches, he or any other court should be persuaded that the EPA pursues a policy of illegal searches worthy of enjoinment.
Part II of this Note outlines the statutory authority for environmental surveillance and the authority that limits the EPA's actions in this area. Next, the Note explores the case law prior to the Reeves decisions suggesting that individuals were practically powerless to challenge EPA inspections under the Fourth Amendment due to the open fields exception to the Fourth Amendment. Part III discusses the events leading up to the suit filed by Reeves Brothers, as well as Chief Judge Kiser's legal analysis in the case. Finally, Part IV concludes by discussing the likely effects the Reeves decisions will have on the activities of environmental regulatory agencies in the future.
