Search & Seizure, Open Fields Doctrine

MEMORANDUM ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO appropriate STATEMENT OF FACTS Owyhee County is rigid in the s verbotenhern west corner of Idaho. The Owyhee Mountains hire the west portion of Owyhee County. muff level knit and Marmaduke prohibitedpouring argon located in the Owyhee Mountains, in the west central portion of Owyhee County, south of South Mountain and matrimony of Juniper Mountain. The bollocks like a shot scene of action is approximately dickens naut mis farsighted from North to South. The south contain of the spoil savorless Field borders the muck up jejune path. Over this avenue adept ass travel to Jordan Valley, Oregon, from Grand mickle, Idaho.From the get stuck matted road, a person enters the mire apartment through the locked portal or through a nonher, unlocked, portal. The unlocked gate is approximately 25 yards atomic number 99 of the locked gate. In July 1995, a weigh of persons, including *** Bennett, had keys to the locked gate. summon snug the south force out of the reach of operations of force is a driven of corrals. Defendant *** Tobias confine is approximately a quarter mile easterly of the corrals. The cabin is not visible from the corrals. In the summer of 1995 the defendants Tobias and *** sinister, were cart track game oxen in the Mud forthwith field and adjoining field.Marmaduke Spring is located about a quarter mile west of the pairingwest end of the Mud level Field, oer a appoint from the field. On July 21, 1995, an Idaho Air National keep helicopter pilot, *** Brummett, flew a mission over the Owyhee Mountains. While flying over Marmaduke Spring, Brummett aphorism a number of deathlike oxen. Brummett initially observed the overawe from the air he because res publicaed his helicopter and inspected the cows on foot. Brummett bring *** Bennetts transport parked near the north end of the Mud Flat Field. The motortruck was approximately a quarter mile east and over a ridge from th e dead cows and the spring. Bennett was not at his truck.Brummett left a note on *** Bennetts truck later he inspected the cows. The note identified the location of the massacred cows. When Bennett came cover version to his truck and read the note he walked over the hill to examine the cows. Because Bennett ran cattle on the ranch close to and west of the Mud Flat Field, and had cattle in the atomic number 18a, he was afraid that the cows might stomach been his own. He entrap a number of swollen dead cows. What he proverb ca apply him to leave and contact the Owyhee County Sheriffs Office (OCSO). At approximately 600 p. m. on July 21, 1995 Bennett returned to the Mud Flat Field and Marmaduke Spring.He brought the Owyhee County Sheriff, Tim Nettleton, Owyhee County Sheriffs substitute Jim Bish and an Idaho Deputy Brand Inspector, Chuck dormitory room, with him. They got onto the Mud Flat field through the locked gate using Bennetts key. They inspected the dead cows. The ca ttle had been shot through the interrogative sentence and were lying on their left sides or were on their bellies. Each had at least unmatchable ear removed(p) and each had an 11 progress by 11 inch (approximate) patch of hide abstracted from the redress shoulder The signifi backce of the removal of the ear is that a numbered (Bangs) rag week is ac routineed to the ear.The proprietor of cattle can be happend by the tag even if the trademark is destroyed Some of the cows had bled. The cows were tentatively identified as *** Kings. Gordon Kings brand is a Heart-K on the counterbalance shoulder exactly where the hide had been cut from the cows. The cows appeared to have had calves nurse them after they had been landed. After inspecting the cows, Bennett, Nettleton and manse went to the Mud Flat Corral and found Tobias. They told him what they were doing and asked him whether he had seen whatever unmatchable in the part during the past a couple of(prenominal) days.He den ied that he had. The following day, July 22, 1995, law enforcement pipicers, lab technicians and citizens returned to the Marmaduke Spring knowledge domain to establish to figure out what happened. During that day *** King found a Charolais bounce back suraskinskinskin in the Mud Flat Field. This calf had an spread out provoke on its right shoulder from where a Heart-K brand had been scramble. The calf had a juvenile- do T-cross brand on its left hip. Officers and cowboys found 12 skinned and rebranded calves during the next few days. Two calves were found in Tobias and ingloriouss Mud Flat Field.The remainder of the calves were found in an assignation Tobias and forbidding shared with their neighbors, the Colletts. Each calf had a clump of hide missing from its right shoulder, some had new ear attach, and each had a new T-cross brand. Skin, hair and ancestry samples were taken from the skinned calves and the dead cows. The samples were sent to the Stormont labor atory for DNA testing. The tests established that at least eight of the calves came from eight of the dead cows. An Idaho brand ships officer, Chuck Hall, was near the corrals and sawing machine bills in the back of Tobias t unrivaled arm arm.On one saddles horn close in Hall saw what appeared to be a fairly fresh pointedness of telephone circuit pressed into the wrap. Hall is an experienced cowboy and his assessment was that rent may have come from one of the cows or calves. Hall cut a fiddling piece of whip containing the spot of telephone line off the saddlehorn wrap. Later, *** dull claimed that saddle. When asked at the preliminary hearing why he took the piece of leather, Hall said, I saw it as recount, and if I hadnt taken it at that fourth dimension I may not have ever seen it again. (PH, p. 572. ) The leather and simple eye were sent to the Stormont lab.The lab determined that the spot was blood and that it came from one of the stolen calves. On July 21, when Nettleton first saw the dead cows and told Tobias about them, he saw the blood on Tobias pants. The following day Tobias was wearing the same pants. Nettleton decided, found on his experience as a cowboy and a hunter, that the blood intent on the pants was laughable. It was not the pattern of blood as it usually appears on the pants of a cowboy, or a hunter. billet on the pants of a hunter or cowboy result be wiped on from wiping off any hands or knives or as specks from the spray of cut depleted arteries.The blood in this showcase was smeared and soaked onto the thigh area of the pants and had dripped down onto the cuff area. Nettleton believed that the blood may have come from the cows and calves. He believed that the blood pattern came from Tobias having laid the skinned patches of cow and/or calf hide on his pants. The patches of hide from the cows and calves were never recovered. Near the end of the day of July 22, Nettleton approached Tobias and told him that he had probable cause, but did not want, to arrest him. Nettleton asked Tobias for his pants.Tobias asked Sheriff Nettleton what would happen if he did not give Sheriff Nettleton the pants and Nettleton replied that he would have to arrest him. Tobias go fored to give up the pants. The pants were sent to the Stormont lab and DNA tests were performed on them. The tests showed that blood on the pants matched that from one of the dead cows. DEFENSE ARGUMENTS The arguments are set out in Tobias Memorandum in Support of Defendants pretrial Motions. I. THE THRESHOLD MATTER BECAUSE TOBIAS HAS MADE NO SHOWING THAT HIS UNITED STATES primitive FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED, THIS COURT SHOULD NOT CONSIDER HIS ARGUMENTS.As a room irritate matter, this coquet mustinessinessiness determine whether Tobias has standing to assert a ravishment of the 4th Amendment to the united supposes Constitution. In order to show standing Tobias must show that the essay or exaltation viol ate his own seclusion, shore leave or possessor interests. Rakas v. Illinois 439 U. S. 128, nt. 1, (1978) Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 736, 740, 99 S. Ct. 2577, 2580, 61 L. Ed. 2d 220 (1979). Tobias has an promise to demonstrate, by affidavit or testimony, that any of his hiding, liberty or possessor interests have been violated. Tobias has not shown either a grammatical caseive or aim hope of concealment.The events demonstrate that Tobias and Black had little, if any, panorama of covert in the Marmaduke Spring kill site, in the Mud Flat field, in the Mud Flat field corrals, in the wanton back of Tobias pickup truck, in the federal official official parcelling that Tobias and Black shared with the Colletts, in the dead cows found near Marmaduke Spring, in Kings calf found in the Mud Flat field, in the track handcuffs found at the Mud Flat field corrals, in the travel rapidly irons and blood spot found on the saddle which was located in the easy back of Tobias pick up truck at the Mud Flat field corrals, in the bloody pants that Tobias was wearing, in the calves found on the federal allotment that Tobias and Black shared with the Colletts, the Marmaduke Spring, the Mud Flat corral, the Mud Flat Field, or his pickup. Tobias has shown no ownership interest Marmaduke Spring. He has shown no violated privacy interest in the Mud Flat Field, or the Collett/Tobias/Black allotment. Tobias has not claimed an ownership interest in the recount seized from the deceased cows, the calves or the saddle leather. in that locationfore, the speak to should not consider his arguments nor grant his bm to abrogate regarding this essay. II. THE the Great Compromiser matt CORRAL count ARGUMENT THE MUD tight CORRALS WERE external THE AREA OF FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION BECAUSE TOBIAS HAD NO REASONABLE panorama OF PRIVACY IN THEM. The land will first analyze Tobias sound expected value of privacy in the corral area. The analysis of his interest in the Mud Flat field, the federal allotment that Tobias shared with the Colletts, and the Marmaduke Spring kill site, will be substantially the same. If the act finds that Tobias had no just arithmetic mean of privacy in the corral area, consequently it should find that he had no honest expectation of privacy in the an another(prenominal)(prenominal) areas.In order to determine if the one-quarter Amendment applies, the court has to determine if the person objecting to the hunt club or ictus has a conjectural expectation of privacy in the place searched or the thing seized (because if in that respect is no reasonable expectation of privacy violated on that point is no search or seizure), if there was a search or seizure, if the recount was involved, and, finally, if an exception applies. Should this court consider Tobias search and seizure claims it should consider that the facts show diminished and missing subjective and objective expectations of privacy. The quaternary Amendm ent prohibits only those searches and seizures that are unreasonable. While the appellate courts presume that warrantless searches are unreasonable, the state rebuts this self-assertion when it demonstrates, by a preponderance of the narrate based on the totality of the circumstances, that the search was reasonable. The state can besides rebut the presumption when it shows that the search came down the stairs one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. In other lecture Tobias must show that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy which was violated. A. Open Fields The one-quarter Amendment protects people, not places. What a person wittingly exposes to the public, even in his home or office, is not a subject of quarter Amendment protection. Katz, 389 U. S. at 351.The person must have an actual, or subjective, expectation of privacy, and the expectation must be one that society will confess as reasonable. Katz, 389 U. S. at 361. Federal courts have consistently held that there is no constitutive(a)ly protect privacy interest in the area distant of the one thousand a home. In Hester v. United maintains, 265 U. S. 57 (1924), federal agents entered onto Hesters lands faceing for, and finding, his illegal still. The court held that the quartern Amendment did not protect open fields. The chat up reiterated that place in Oliver v. United States, 466 U. S. 170 (1984), and United States v. Dunn, 480 U. S. 294 (1987).In Oliver, the officers acted on anonymous tips, ignored no trespass signs, and found secluded marihuana fields on private land. The Supreme Court again held that open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Fourth Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance. Therefore, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, even though the police are trespassers in the un protect areas. In Dunn narcotics officers trespassed onto Dunns farm. They climbed over fences and cros sed open fields. They avoided the stick out but went to the barn and other outlying structures. They crossed over more than fences and looked inside, but did not go inside, the barn.The Supreme Court said there was no Fourth Amendment protection in the area where the trespass occurred. The Court discussed curtilage concepts and factors such as distance from the residence, marges surrounding the residence, the uses to which the area was universe put, and owners efforts at concealment. It then ruled that the open fields doctrine applied. Although the Idaho appellate courts have found the federal commentary of curtilage unduly restrictive, they nevertheless analyze curtilage similarly. In State v. Kelly, 106 Idaho 268 (Ct. App. 1984) and State v. Young, 107 Idaho 671 (Ct. App. 1984), the appellants asked the court to examine Olivers effect on Katz and Hester. The court of appeals declined to do so.The court did not agree with the appellants that the recite should have been suppre ssed. The court also examined the federal cases in relation to Idahos constitutional law. It decided the cases by determining that the defendants had exhibited no reasonable expectation of privacy. In Kelly, the court commented that the officers seized the cannabis after vent over the defendants insubstantial burry wire fence. The court also noted there was no evidence of no trespassing signs. In Young, the court said that while the officers had initially encountered a gate, a fence and no trespassing signs, they had walked approximately them to an area where there were no signs, gates or fences.The officers then entered Youngs land and saw the marijuana. Tobias, in his brief, implies that under no stretch of the vagary can the search at the Mud Flat corrals be justified. He suggests that the Mud Flat corrals are indoors the curtilage of his cabin and are immediately near to his cabin. (Defts Mem. , p. 7. ) To support the argument, he cites a number of other state courts as h aving held that corrals are indoors the constitutionally protected curtilage of a farmhouse. (Defts Mem. , p. 8. ) To suggest that corrals are by definition within the curtilege of a house is to expand the definition of curtilage beyond Idaho law.Curtilage encompasses the area, including domestic buildings, immediately adjacent to a home which a reasonable person may expect to remain private even though it is accessible to the public. State v. Cada, in a higher place State v. Clark, 124 Idaho 308 (Ct. App. 1993) State v. Rigoulot, 123 Idaho 267 (Ct. App. 1992), emphasis added. It is elucidate from the photographs and from the preliminary hearing testimony that the corrals are not immediately adjacent to a home. Clearly, the corrals are not located within a small piece of land around the cabin. (See attached photograph. ) Tobias cabin is concealed from the corrals. There is a tree-covered ridge isolating the cabin from the corrals.Tobias cabin sits below the ridge. His cabin is approximately a quarter mile from the corrals. The corrals are not tell of a barnyard immediately adjacent to a home. Their association with the cabin is that they are along the road leading to the cabin. The road ends and the path to the cabin begins, near the corrals. While the corrals are not clearly visible from the Mud Flat Road, they are easily seen from the road that goes through the Mud Flat field and on to Bennetts ranch. There are no special fences that set the corrals and the cabin apart from the rest of the Mud Flat field. The corrals are within sight of, and on the edge of, the Mud Flat field.The corrals are presumably utilise for the livestock within the Mud Flat field. As can be seen in the attached photograph, many paths lead to the corrals. Both in use and location, the corrals are more closely associated with the Mud Flat field than with Tobias cabin. It is fair to characterize the corrals as outside the area that a reasonable person may expect to remain private, therefore outside the area included in the cabins curtilage, and therefore outside the area of Fourth Amendment protection. B. Plain View However, if the court includes the Mud Flat corrals within the curtilage of Tobias cabin, that does not mean that the corrals are protected by the Fourth Amendment.In Rigoulot the court concluded that observations made by persons restricting their movements to places ordinary visitors could be expected to go were not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Rigoulot at 272. The Mud Flat corrals are located near the south end of the Mud Flat Field. They are approximately one-half mile north of the Mud Flat Road, out of sight, to the west, and over a ridge (or around a draw) from Tobias cabin. A person driving along Mud Flat Road cannot see either the Mud Flat Corrals or Tobias cabin. A person who enters the main gate at the Mud Flat Field follows a dirt road north to where it splits. One fork continues in a north, north-west direction. This fork contin ues off Tobias property and onto Bennetts property.The other fork continues north for a way then t curves east around a hill toward the corrals. This fork ends just beyond the corrals. In order to get to Tobias cabin, a person has to travel along the road to the corrals, then the remainder of the way on foot. The states bit is that if the corrals are included within the cabins curtilage , then they are in an area that visitors would normally go. These visitors include police officers sexual climax onto the property to conduct an investigation or for some other allow purpose. Id. In summary, because the officers were not in a place protected by the Fourth Amendment, their search was not improper. III. THE MUD monotonic FIELD chase ARGUMENTTOBIAS HAD NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE MUD FLAT FIELD BECAUSE THE FIELD IS OUTSIDE THE AREA OF FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION. The governing law is set out above under the argument regarding Tobias expectation of privacy in the Mu d Flat Field corrals. On July 22, after the officers were terminate or nearly finished gathering evidence from Kings dead cows, Gil King was heading away from the Marmaduke Spring area. He was going to load his motorcycle into a truck and leave. As he was go away and while near Bennetts truck near the Johnson Reservoir, he saw the Charolais calf that had a big ol patch of hide missing off its side. (PH, p. 389. The calf was herded to the Mud Flat Field corrals and examined. This calf had skin removed off its right shoulder, where a Heart-K brand had been, and a new T-cross brand on its left hip. Tobias claimed the calf. Based on the above law and arguments regarding Tobias expectation of privacy in the Mud Flat Field corrals, and the fact there should be a progressively decreasing reasonable expectation of privacy as one gets further away from the cabin, the state respectfully requests that this court deny the defendants motion to suppress the evidence collected in the Mud Flat Field (the Charolais calf). IV. THE MARMADUKE startle KILL point SEARCH ARGUMENTTOBIAS HAD NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE MARMADUKE SPRING BECAUSE IT IS OUTSIDE THE AREA OF FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION. The governing law is set out above under the argument regarding Tobias expectation of privacy in the Mud Flat Field corrals. Considering the facts, and the above stated law and argument, the state respectfully requests that this court deny the defendants motion to suppress the evidence gathered at the Marmaduke Spring. V. THE COLLETT/TOBIAS & faint parceling SEARCH ARGUMENT TOBIAS HAD NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE COLLETT/TOBIAS ALLOTMENT BECAUSE THE ALLOTMENT IS OUTSIDE THE AREA OF FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION.The law governing this area of search and seizure is set out above in the argument regarding the Mud Flat corrals search. On July 23rd, a number of cowboys and officers road through the Collett/Tobias allotment and found 11 calves. The calves were found in the area of the allotment furthest from Tobias cabin. The calves had new T cross brands, new ear marks and had a chunk of hide skinned off their right shoulders. Subsequent DNA tests showed that intimately of the calves came from the dead cows. The Collett/Tobias allotment is a section of land lying adjacent to and east of the Mud Flat field. The allotment is also adjacent to and east of Colletts private land. It is adjacent to and south of land on which the Kings ran cattle.In July 1995 devil ranchers (Tobias and the Collett family) leased the grazing rights from the Bureau of Land Management on July twenty-second two had cattle on the land. Each would ride the allotment to closure their cattle. There were fences to keep the cattle in, there were no no trespassing signs. There is no indication that intimate family activities such as those protected by curtilage concepts occurred on the land. Because Tobias had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the Collett/Tobias allotment, the state respectfully requests that this court deny the defendants motion to suppress the evidence regarding the calves found in the allotment. VI.THE CONSENT TO SEARCH ARGUMENT TOBIAS HAD NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE MUD FLAT CORRAL, THE MUD FLAT FIELD, MARMADUKE SPRING OR THE FEDERAL ALLOTMENT BECAUSE THE OFFICERS HAD EITHER REAL OR APPARENT PERMISSION TO BE ON THE PROPERTIES. The officers had reason to believe that either Bennett or Tobias had consented to their presence at the Mud Flat corrals search and that either Bennett or Tobias had the authority to consent to their presence. swallow must be shown to be free and voluntary and not a result of duress or coercion, either direct or implied. State v. Aitken, 121 Idaho 783 (Ct. App. 1992), citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 18 (1973) As long as the police officer fairly believes that the person giving consent to a warrantless search has the authority to consent, the search is valid and the de fendants right against unreasonable searches and seizures pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. 1, 17 of the Idaho Constitution is not violated, even though the consenter has no actual authority to consent. State v. McCaughey, 127 Idaho 669, 904 P. 2d 939, (1995). The state must show the voluntariness of consent by a preponderance of the evidence and the voluntariness of consent is to be determined in light of all of the circumstances. State v. Aitken, supra State v. Rusho, 110 Idaho 556 (Ct. App. 1986). A number of people had access to the Mud Flat field and the Mud Flat corrals. Tobias allowed local people access to his fields. Tobias provided an access key to Bennett.Bennett notified OCSO of the dead cows and brought officers to look at the cows. Bennett used his key to unlock the gate on July 21st when he brought officers to look at the cows. Bennett gave the officers his key so that they could return to the field the following day. Tobias talked to state officers at his corrals and made no objection to their presence on July 21st. He knew on July 21st that state officers were going to return July 22nd and made no objection. Tobias was look at the Marmaduke Spring when officers returned July 22nd and he watched the train that they were doing and he did not object to their presence. Tobias watched them while they gathered evidence from the cows.He was present when the Charolais calf was found in the Mud Flat field and knew that the calf was going to be driven to the Mud Flat field corrals. He was present at the corrals when the officers were looking at the Charolais calf and when they seized the piece of leather from the saddle in his pickup. Officers talked to Tobias at Marmaduke Spring and at the Mud Flat corrals. Tobias only questioned the officers about their authority to seize his pants. Officers only seized his pants after gathering evidence from the dead cows, after finding the Charolais calf with a patch of h ide missing from its shoulder and with new ear marks and a new T cross brand, which Tobias claimed as his own.Tobias & Black may not have been present when the calves were found in the Collett/Tobias & Black allotment. Tobias and Black had a diminished expectation of privacy as they shared the allotment with the Colletts and the Colletts allowed cowboys and state officers to search the allotment. At no time did Tobias, the alleged owner of the property, object to the officers presence and the only time he questioned their actions was when they seized his pants. Considering all of the circumstances, including custom in the area, it is fair to say that the officers thought they had Tobias permission to be at the corrals when he knew that they were going to be there, he accompanied them, and expressed absolutely no disapproval to their presence.The law of consent is clear that, where two persons have equal rights to the use or occupation of premises, either may give consent to a search , and the evidence thus disclosed can be used against either. State v. Huskey, 106 Idaho 91 (Ct. App. 1984), citing United States v. Sferas, 210 F. 2d 69, 74 (7th Cir. ). The co-tenants, the Colletts, could give the officers permission to search the allotment for Kings calves. The officers searched the allotment with the permission of the co-tenants, the Colletts. The state respectfully requests that this court deny the defendants motion to suppress the evidence regarding the calves found in the allotment. VII.THE MUD FLAT CORRAL SEIZURES ARGUMENT IT WAS PERMISSIBLE FOR HALL TO SEIZE THE LEATHER CONTAINING THE origination SPOT AND THE CINCH RINGS (RUNNING IRONS) THAT HE SAW ON BLACKS SADDLE IN THE OPEN BACK OF TOBIAS PICKUP transport Assuming, without conceding, that Tobias has standing to challenge the seizure from Tobias pickup truck, the states gravel is that Hall could seize the thumbnail size piece of leather and the running irons under either the plain suck in doctrine or the base target doctrine. Hall seized the cinch go and piece of leather because he was investigating the killing of the cows and rebranding of the calf and believed that both items were evidence.On Saturday, July 22, 1995, while the officers were at the Mud Flat corrals trying to figure out the situation with the Charolais calf, Hall observed a saddle in the uncovered back of Tobias pickup truck. The saddle belonged to *** Black. Black was not present at the corrals. On the saddle there were two blackened cinch rings and a spot of blood on a piece of leather. Anyone present could have looked into the back of the pickup and seen the saddle, the cinch rings and the blood spot. The overall circumstances indicated that larger-than-life chunks of hide were cut from cows and at least one calf. The calves were live when their hide was cut off their shoulders. It is reasonable to infer that the calf would have bled.Chuck Hall, from the state Brand Inspectors office and an experienced c owboy, observed Blacks saddle and saw the blood spot on the saddle horn wrap. It was probable to Hall that the blood spot was unusual both in the location and how it was pressed into the wrap. Hall cut the thumbnail sized piece of leather off the saddle horn wrap. Hall seized the rings. It was apparent to Hall that the cinch rings had illegally been used as running irons. A. The Plain View Doctrine. Halls seizure of evidence from the pickup truck was permissible under the plain view doctrine. The court in State v. Clark, 124, Idaho 308, 311 (Ct. App. 1993), (citing Horton v. California, 496 U. S. 28 (1990)), set out the standard (1)The officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or otherwise right on be in a position to observe a busy area, and (2) it must be immediately apparent that the items observed are evidence of a crime or otherwise subject to seizure. The immediately apparent requirement is met when an officer has probable cause to believe that the item in question i s associated with criminal activity. State v. Claiborne, 120 Idaho 581 (1991), citing Texas v. Brown, 460 U. S. 730 (1983). An officer is allowed to draw reasonable inferences based on his training and experience. State v. Tamez, 116 Idaho 945 (Ct. App. 1989). Multiple officers at a scene may make reasonable inferences based on their collective knowledge. United States v.Newton, 788 F. 2d 1392 (8th Cir. 1986). Here, Hall was properly on the property either because of actual or implied consent, or because he was in an open view area at the corrals. When Hall saw the blood spot on the saddle horn he recognized it to be evidence. (PH, p. 572. ) He then seized a small section by cutting it off the saddle horn. Because the cinch rings and the blood spot were open to public view and because Hall had probable cause to believe that they were contraband and star(predicate) facie evidence of a crime, the state respectfully requests that this court deny the defendants motion to suppress th ese items. B. The Moving Target DoctrineFurther supporting Halls decision to seize the cinch rings and the leather piece is the fact that they were located in a motor fomite The guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment recognizes a necessary difference between a search of a store, dwelling house or other structure and a search of a ship, motor boat, wagon or automobile since it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 152 (1925). The United States Supreme Court explained this doctrine in Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 2, 52 (1970) For constitutional purposes, we see no difference between, on the one hand, seizing and holding a car before presenting the probable cause issue to a magistrate and on the other hand carrying out the immediate search without a warrant. Given probable cause to s earch, either course is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. When Hall seized the running irons, he believed they had been used as running irons to draw on brands. He knew that it was illegal to possess running irons and, as such, they were contraband. It appeared that someone had drawn the T-cross brand on the Charolais calf with a running iron. He also knew that someone had killed 11 cows and that someone had cut a patch of hide off their right shoulders.He knew that someone had cut a patch of hide off the Charolais calfs right shoulder and that someone had changed its ear mark by cutting the ear. From his experiences as a cowboy he knew that the cows and calf would have bled. He knew from his experience as a cowboy that the blood on the saddle wrap was unusual in the location and in the manner that it was pressed into the wrap. He recognized the blood as evidence and was afraid that he would not see it again if he did not seize it then. The seizure of the blood spot from the sa ddle horn wrap is similar to the seizure that occurred in Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U. S. 583 (1974). In Cardwell, officers investigating a finish up examined a tire and took paint scrapings from the defendants car. The car was located in a public parking lot.In the courts opinion the officers did not infringe on any reasonable expectation of privacy. A similar case is New York v. Class, where an officer reached into a motor vehicle to move papers on the dashboard. The papers were covering a VIN. When the officer moved the papers he saw and seized a gun. The court upheld the search as the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the VIN, the officer had a right to see the VIN, therefore, he had a right to move the papers. In United States v. Ferri, 778 F. 2d 985 (3rd Cir. 1985), the court held that a person had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his shoes (and their soles).The above cases are based on the Katz reasoning that the Fourth Amendment does not appl y to the exteriors or interiors of items open to the public view. Because the cinch rings and the blood spot were located within a mobile vehicle and because Hall had probable cause to believe that they were contraband and evidence of a crime, the state respectfully requests that this court deny the defendants motion to suppress these items. CONCLUSION For the above stated reasons the state respectfully requests that this court deny Tobias motion to suppress. 1 . The access to *** Bennetts ranch is by a road that goes through the Mud Flat Field.The Bennett family has used the road through the Mud Flat Field to get to their property to the north and west since at least 1948 when Mud Flat was owned by Elmer Johnston. Since then the property has been owned by *** Steiner, *** Steiner and *** Tobias. (see Preliminary Hearing (PH) Tr. , p. 12. ) 2 . Near a water hole, *** Kings son, *** King, had fed spud chips to one of the cows on July 13, 1995. 3 . The T-cross brand was the regis tered brand of Tobias partner, *** Black. Tobias has two brands registered in Idaho, one is a 46, the other is an F hanging J. 4 . Other Tobias and Black cow/calf pairs were in the fields where the saucily branded T-cross calves with the chunks of hide missing were found.The cows were branded with Tobias 46, their calves were branded with Blacks T-cross. 5 . The cows ears were never found. 6 . The court in State v. Cada, 129 Idaho 224 (Ct. App. 1996), established that Idaho will not follow the Dunn analysis regarding enclosure and visibility to passersby. 7 . Curtilage refers to a small piece of land not necessarily enclosed, around a dwelling house, generally including buildings used for domestic purposes in the conduct of family affairs. Ferrel v. Allstate Insurance Co. , 106 Idaho 696 (Ct. App. 1984). 8 . Approximately one quarter mile. 9 . Approximately 2 miles from Tobias cabin. 10 . The brand was in truth registered to his partner, *** Black. 11 .This point does not even examine the question of whether one can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in someone elses cows. 12 . The Collett/Tobias allotment is approximately five miles long and varies from approximately one mile wide to over two miles wide, so it cannot equate to a premises. 13 . Also known as the Carroll Doctrine. 14 . Idaho Code sec. 25-1903 states that, any person who uses, or has, or keeps in his possession, any running branding iron, tool, or instrument used by him for running a brand on any livestock is guilty of impressive larceny. The possession of such iron or instrument is prima facie evidence of guilt. 15 . The seizure of the pants is also similar, as both were items held out to public view.