"Open fields" doctrine

Recently, I started two different threads that addressed issues related
to warrantless search and seizure. Other related concepts are the
exclusionary rule and the extent to which this applies in criminal
matters or certain civil matters as well. Furthermore, is there a
relationship between warrantless search and seizure and the law of
trespass?

The "plain view" doctrine wasn't at issue in these situations because
the contraband or building code/zoning violation wasn't obvious without
the trespass.

In one thread, the landowner lost on appeal. He had no expectation of
privacy from drone overflights gathering evidence of code violations in
a situation in which the landowner had previously agreed to comply with
code but had never agreed to continuing inspections.

In another thread, the landowner won a partial victory in which state
game wardens could not trespass to place wildlife cameras hoping to
catch hunting violations.

Where does the landowner have an expectation of privacy? Where the "open
fields doctrine" applies, he has no expectation of privacy.

The expectation of privacy has been denied the landowner, despite the
language of the Fourth Amendment, because of a very narrow
interpretation of the right against search and seizure in Hester v.
United States (1924). Searches in such areas as pastures, wooded
areas, open water, and vacant lots need not comply with the requirements
of warrants and probable cause. The doctrine was re-affirmed in Oliver
v. United States (1984), in which warrantless intrusion past
no trespassing signs and around a locked gate, to view field not visible
from outside property, was approved.

Institute for Justice would like the doctrine reversed and made a
calculation that 96% of private land in the United States is subject to
the doctrine.

They claim that in both 1924 and 1984, the Supreme Court was being more
political than legal, that Americans wanted certain problems addressed
and they wanted the government to have wide latitude in searching for
contraband, hoping that its seizure would stem the problem. In 1924, a
pre-Prohibition liquor control tax law was being enforced, looking for
stills on private property. In 1984, the concern was about growing
marijuana crops.

They also pointed out that other parts of the Constitution are read
expansively for greater liberty, such as the speech provision in the
First Amendment. Speech is not limited to the spoken word but art and
music and performance and certain public acts.

Ruling Lets Gov't TRESPASS on 96% of PRIVATE Land in the U.S.
Institute for Justice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN-VEE7fAEs