“I stay in my lane,” said Tennessee farmer Terry Rainwaters — that is, unless someone veers into his children’s.
That’s how this second-generation farmer came to be the prevailing plaintiff — at trial and on appeal — in Terry Rainwaters et al. v. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency et al.
At issue was whether officers could install game cameras facing Rainwaters’ land and then bypass a locked gate to enter the property because they suspected violations of wildlife laws. Over several years, such entry was routine.
The appeals court ruled the state statute “is facially constitutional but unconstitutionally applied.” Nominal damages were awarded.
But Rainwaters didn’t sue for money. He sued to be left alone.
“I don’t even hunt,” Rainwaters said. “But they were bothering the kids. … I was tired of them overstepping their boundaries.”
Open Fields Doctrine
Tennessee defended its actions under what’s known as the Open Fields Doctrine, a Prohibition-era position that a “warrantless search of the area outside a property owner’s curtilage” does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Curtilage, though not well-defined in case law, is considered the immediate area around a person’s home. It’s an archaic word in a doctrine the Institute for Justice also believes is antiquated — if it ever should have existed at all.
Rainwaters’ case is just one that IJ, a public interest law firm based in Washington, D.C., has taken up in recent years in a state-by-state national quest to strike down a doctrine that it believes exposes 1.2 billion acres of private land to warrantless searches.
“All of our cases are designed to construe to states that they should reject this Open Fields Doctrine,” said Joshua Windham, IJ senior attorney. “We think the Constitution should be made of firmer stuff.”
National issue
“We’re not anti-law enforcement,” Windham said. “We’re not anti-regulation. We are pro-Constitution.”
The institute’s efforts are focused on tightening the rules on when public officials can enter private land, whether that’s a law enforcement officer, agricultural inspector or tax assessor.
One of the issues is how public officials “enter” somebody’s property, whether it’s on foot, by use of drones or with cameras mounted on trees, as in Rainwaters’ case.
“People should be more secure on their land,” said senior attorney Robert Frommer, also at IJ. “Our long-term goal is to get that drumbeat going.”
Rainwaters took up the beat because he wanted to be treated with the same respect he gives law enforcement and other public officials.
“Treat somebody with respect and respect their property,” he said.
Two years after the final ruling, Rainwaters noted peace has returned.
“They started leaving us alone as soon as we filed,” he said. “I’m glad I did it. It’s the best thing that could ever happen.”