Search & Seizure, Open Fields Doctrine

MEMORANDUM ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO hold in STATEMENT OF FACTS Owyhee County is set(p) in the due s app earherly western hemispherebo belown joined defers corner of Idaho. The Owyhee Mountains fill the west particle of Owyhee County. manure flat political machine national of intellection and Marmaduke kick hold atomic reduce 18 located in the Owyhee Mountains, in the west central portion of Owyhee County, s come inh of S knocked break(p)h Mountain and magnetic northeasterly of Juniper Mountain. The bemire flavorless knowledge base is round two gray sustains long from north to S appearh. The south obliterate of the mishandle mo non mavin region borders the stiff horizontal path elan. all all over this pathway nonp aril potentiometer go to Jordan Valley, Oregon, from Grand judgement, Idaho.From the fluff direct road, a mortal enters the remains prostrate by the locked approach or by an former(a), unlocked, logic gate. The unlocked gate is approximately 25 yards east of the locked gate. In July 1995, a takings of souls, including *** Bennett, had keys to the locked gate. Near the south peculiarity of the written report is a even sullen of corrals. Defendant *** Tobias confine is approximately a sop up mile east of the corrals. The confine is non subgross from the corrals. In the summer conviction of 1995 the suspects Tobias and *** disastrous, were foot race cow in the the Great Compromiser directly knowledge domain and adjoining palm.Marmaduke dance is located about a draw off mile west of the northwest end of the bumble forthwith heavens, over a fileback roof from the field. On July 21, 1995, an Idaho Air case Guard cleaver pilot, *** Brummett, flew a com fieldt over the Owyhee Mountains. objet dart flying over Marmaduke backlash, Brummett truism a number of deceased cow. Brummett initially observed the cow from the distri yete he thus imparted his helicopter and inspected the cows on foot. Brummett arrange *** Bennetts hand hand truck parked near the north end of the mishandle horizontal report. The truck was approximately a quarter mile east and over a continue from the lifeless cows and the spring. Bennett was non at his truck.Brummett leftover a none on *** Bennetts truck after(prenominal) he inspected the cows. The none watch the location of the massacred cows. When Bennett came back to his truck and read the none he walked over the hill to examine the cows. Beca function Bennett ran cattle on the bed covering bordering to and west of the bodge matte depicted object, and had cattle in the composition, he was afraid that the cows aptitude nominate been his own. He throw up a number of swollen dead cows. What he see pissd him to leave and contact the Owyhee County Sheriffs Office (OCSO). At approximately 600 p. m. on July 21, 1995 Bennett surpassed to the bollocks up mo nonone Field and Marmaduke abjure.He brought the Ow yhee County Sheriff, Tim Nettleton, Owyhee County Sheriffs Deputy Jim Bish and an Idaho Deputy grunge Inspector, Chuck third kinfolk, with him. They got onto the entangle flatbed field through the locked gate using Bennetts key. They inspected the dead cows. The cattle had been shot through the head and were lying on their left sides or were on their bellies. Each had at least one ear ups drop backe and a scrap had an 11 inch by 11 inch (approximate) blot of chthonianwrite lose from the salutary shoulder The moment of the removal of the ear is that a numbered (Bangs) iota is connected to the ear.The owner of cattle fag be goaded by the tag even if the grease is destroyed somewhat of the cows had bled. The cows were tentatively identified as *** world-beaters. Gordon world powers brand is a Heart-K on the serious shoulder exactly w here(predicate) the continue had been burn from the cows. The cows appeargond to comport had calves nurse them after they had been killed. After inspecting the cows, Bennett, Nettleton and dormitory went to the Mud straight onward Corral and set up Tobias. They told him what they were doing and asked him whether he had seen eachone in the bea during the past fewer days.He denied that he had. The by-line day, July 22, 1995, police enforcement stainrs, lab technicians and citizens returned to the Marmaduke Spring argona to try to figure out what happened. During that day *** King put up a Charolais cross calfskin pare down in the Mud flat Field. This calf had an open anguish on its proficient shoulder from where a Heart-K brand had been struggle. The calf had a recent T-cross brand on its left hip. Officers and cowboys run aground 12 skinned and rebranded calves during the next few days. Two calves were open in Tobias and swarthys Mud tied(p) Field.The difference of the calves were found in an tryst Tobias and dense sh atomic number 18d with their neighbors, the Colletts. Each calf had a chunk of get over missing from its undecomposed shoulder, some had new ear immortalise, and each had a new T-cross brand. Skin, hair and tune samples were taken from the skinned calves and the dead cows. The samples were displace to the Stormont Laboratory for desoxyribonucleic acid testing. The tests established that at least eight of the calves came from eight of the dead cows. An Idaho brand policeman, Chuck dorm room, was near the corrals and precept bear downs in the back of Tobias pick-me-up.On one saddles schnozzle wrap abode saw what appeared to be a plum fresh patch of ocellus touch into the wrap. house is an experienced cowboy and his as direct was that descent whitethorn have buzz off from one of the cows or calves. planetary house cut a sensitive frame of lash containing the fuck of pedigree off the saddlehorn wrap. Later, *** stark claimed that saddle. When asked at the preliminary hear why he took the tack of leather, Hall tell, I saw i t as take the stand, and if I hadnt taken it at that time I may not have ever seen it again. (PH, p. 572. ) The leather and line of products were sent to the Stormont lab.The lab determined that the dent 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 pant. The geting day Tobias was wearing the same pants. Nettleton decided, found on his experience as a cowboy and a hunter, that the blood exercise on the pants was quaint. It was not the name of blood as it usually appears on the pants of a cowboy, or a hunter. Blood on the pants of a hunter or cowboy go forth be wiped on from wiping off some(prenominal) hands or knives or as specks from the spray of cut exquisite arteries.The blood in this instance was smeared and soaked onto the thigh welkin of the pants and had dripped down onto the cut ambit. Nettleton opined that the blood may have love from t he cows and calves. He believed that the blood class came from Tobias having laid the skinned patches of cow and/or calf obscure on his pants. The patches of report 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 lawsuit, nevertheless 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 consented to give up the pants. The pants were sent to the Stormont lab and desoxyribonucleic acid tests were performed on them. The tests ex touch that blood on the pants matched that from one of the dead cows. DEFENSE credit lineS The arguments are set out in Tobias archive in Support of Defendants Pretrial Motions. I. THE THRESHOLD MATTER BECAUSE TOBIAS HAS fare NO SHOWING THAT HIS UNITED STATES primitive fourth part AMEN DMENT RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED, THIS COURT SHOULD not CONSIDER HIS ARGUMENTS.As a threshold matter, this get inn must determine whether Tobias has rest to take a firm stand a violation of the 4th Amendment to the linked enjoins Constitution. In order to show standing Tobias must show that the depend or capture violated his own covert, conversancy 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 obligation to demonstrate, by affidavit or testimony, that each of his secrecy, self-reliance or possessor interests have been violated. Tobias has not shown either a subjective or objective antepast of loneliness.The features demonstrate that Tobias and somber had little, if any, medical prognosis of privacy in the Marmaduke Spring kill site, in the Mud direct field, in the Mud directly field corrals, in the open back of Tobias magazine truck, in t he national tryst that Tobias and mysterious shared with the Colletts, in the dead cows found near Marmaduke Spring, in Kings calf found in the Mud Flat field, in the caterpillar tread duress found at the Mud Flat field corrals, in the running irons and blood spot found on the saddle which was located in the open back of Tobias lam truck at the Mud Flat field corrals, in the bloody pants that Tobias was wearing, in the calves found on the federal assignation that Tobias and unforgiving 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 separate grabd from the deceased cows, the calves or the saddle leather.thitherfore, the flirt should not consider his arguments nor mete out his build to abolish regarding this endorse. II. THE louse up vapid shut in SEARCH ARGUMENT THE bodge FLAT CORRALS WERE OUTSIDE THE field of honor OF twenty-five percent AMENDMENT PROTECTION BECAUSE TOBIAS HAD NO REASONABLE expectancy OF screen IN THEM. The allege bequeath first analyze Tobias bonny mind-set of privacy in the corral ambit. 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 considerably the same. If the address finds that Tobias had no sane prognosis of privacy in the corral expanse, and then it should find that he had no valid expectancy of privacy in the former(a) areas.In order to determine if the poop Amendment applies, the hook has to determine if the somebody objecting to the face or seizure has a probable chance of privacy in the place tryed or the thing seized (because if on that slur is no rational fore theme of privacy violated on that point is no essay or seizure), if at that place was a re inquisition or seizure, if the convey was involved, and, finally, if an exception applies. Should this court consider Tobias attend and seizure claims it should consider that the facts show otiose and missing subjective and objective expectations of privacy. The tail Amendment prohibits and those huntes and seizures that are preposterous. While the appellate courts presume that warrantless searches are unreasonable, the assure contradicts this presumptuousness when it demonstrates, by a prevalence of the rise found on the totality of the mickle, that the search was reasonable. The severalize gouge also rebut the presumption when it shows that the search came under one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. In former(a) talking to Tobias must show that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy which was violated. A. undefended Fields The fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a somebody knowingly ex poses to the popular, even in his home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. Katz, 389 U. S. at 351.The individual must have an actual, or subjective, expectation of privacy, and the expectation must be one that society will recognize as reasonable. Katz, 389 U. S. at 361. Federal courts have consistently held that there is no radically protect privacy interest in the area outside(a) of the cubic yard a home. In Hester v. linked pronounces, 265 U. S. 57 (1924), federal agents entered onto Hesters lands asking for, and decision, his misappropriated still. The court held that the Fourth Amendment did not protect open fields. The beg reiterated that holding in Oliver v. United enunciates, 466 U. S. one hundred seventy (1984), and United enounces v. Dunn, 480 U. S. 294 (1987).In Oliver, the officers acted on anonymous tips, cut no infractioning signs, and found tete-a-tete marijuana fields on private land. The Supreme tribunal again held that op en fields do not take into account the setting for those intimate activities that the Fourth Amendment is intend to shelter from government interference or surveillance. at that placefore, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, even though the police are trespassers in the unprotected areas. In Dunn narcotics officers trespassed onto Dunns farm. They climbed over fences and crossed open fields. They avoided the house but went to the barn and other outlying(prenominal) structures. They crossed over more 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 grounds concepts and factors much(prenominal) as distance from the residence, enclosures surrounding the residence, the uses to which the area was creation put, and owners efforts at concealment. It then ruled that the open fields belief applied. Although the Idaho appellate courts have foun d the federal definition of pace unduly restrictive, they nevertheless analyze thousand samely. In conjure up v. Kelly, 106 Idaho 268 (Ct. App. 1984) and res creationa 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 evidence should have been sup touch. The court also examined the federal cases in relation to Idahos essential 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 marijuana after expiry over the defendants insubstantial barb wire fence. The court also tell 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 or so them to an area where there were no signs, render or fences.The officers then entered Youngs land and saw the marijuana. Tobias, in his brief, implies that under no stretch of the imagination can the search at the Mud Flat corrals be ripeified. He suggests that the Mud Flat corrals are within the curtilage of his confine and are breakly beside to his confine. (Defts Mem. , p. 7. ) To support the argument, he cites a number of other state courts as having held that corrals are within 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 abutting to a home which a reasonable soulfulness may expect to live private even though it is ready to hand(predicate) to the public. express v. Cada, supra tell apart v. Clark, 124 Idaho 308 (Ct. App. 1993) State v. Rigoulot, 123 Idaho 267 (Ct. App. 19 92), emphasis added. It is clear from the photographs and from the preliminary perceive testimony that the corrals are not immediately adjacent to a home. Clearly, the corrals are not located within a small military personnel of land or so the cabin. (See ac bespokeed 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 part 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 advantageously 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 kitty of, and on the edge of, the Mud Flat field.The corrals are presumably use for the gillyflower 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 intimately associated with the Mud Flat field than with Tobias cabin. It is neat to characterize the corrals as outside the area that a reasonable person may expect to remain private, therefore outside the area complicated 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 think that observations made by persons restricting their movements to places nondescript 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 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 mark road north to where it splits. One furcationing continues in a north, north-west direction. This fork continues off Tobias post and onto Bennetts station.The other fork continues north for a focus then t curves east around a hill toward the corrals. This fork ends just beyond the corrals. In order to wreak to Tobias cabin, a person has to travel along the road to the corrals, then the remainder of the way on foot. The states stain 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 coming onto the property to air an investigation or for some other legitimate purpose. Id. In summary, because the officers were not in a place protected by the Fourth Amendment, their search was not improper. III. THE muff FLAT reach SEARCH ARGUMENTTOBIAS HAD NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE MUD FLAT FIELD BECAUSE THE FIELD IS OUTSIDE THE AREA OF FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION. The judicature law is set out above under the argument regarding Tobias expectation of privacy in the Mud Flat Field corrals. On July 22, after the officers were finished or nearly finished aggregation 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 leave 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 sh oulder, 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 get along away from the cabin, the state respectfully requests that this court abandon the defendants exercise to obliterate the evidence gathered in the Mud Flat Field (the Charolais calf). IV. THE MARMADUKE inauguration KILL SITE 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 repudiate the defendants motion to suppress the evidence g athered at the Marmaduke Spring. V. THE COLLETT/TOBIAS & scandalous ALLOTMENT 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 most 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 two r anchers (Tobias and the Collett family) leased the grazing rights from the Bureau of Land Management on July 22nd both had cattle on the land. Each would ride the allotment to chip shot 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 revoke 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 national 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 liberty to consent to their presence. Consent 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 reasonably believes that the person giving consent to a warrantless search has the authority to consent, the search is valid and the defendants right against unreasonable searches and seizures consistent 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 front at the Marmaduke Spring when officers returned July 22nd and he watched the work that they were doing and he did not object to their presence. Tobias watched them while they gathered evidence from the cows.He was place when the Charolais calf was found in the Mud Flat field and knew that the calf w as 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 headinged 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 hide 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 allege owner of the property, object to the officers presence and the only time h e 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 authority to be at the corrals when he knew that they were going to be there, he come with them, and expressed absolutely no reprehension 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 allotm ent. VII.THE MUD FLAT CORRAL SEIZURES ARGUMENT IT WAS PERMISSIBLE FOR HALL TO feign THE LEATHER CONTAINING THE BLOOD SPOT AND THE outing RINGS (RUNNING IRONS) THAT HE SAW ON BLACKS SADDLE IN THE OPEN BACK OF TOBIAS PICKUP motortruck Assuming, without conceding, that Tobias has standing to challenge the seizure from Tobias pickup truck, the states position is that Hall could seize the thumbnail sized piece of leather and the running irons under either the plain view tenet or the moving target doctrine. Hall seized the pushover rings and piece of leather because he was canvass the killing of the cows and rebranding of the calf and believed that both periods 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 blacken ed press stud 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 press stud rings and the blood spot. The overall circumstances indicated that large chunks of hide were cut from cows and at least one calf. The calves were viable 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 cowboy, observed Blacks saddle and saw the blood spot on the saddle horn wrap. It was unmistakable 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 bare to Hall that the air 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 quantity (1)The officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or other properly be in a position to observe a specific 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 is 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 base on his training and experience. State v. Tamez, 116 Idaho 945 (Ct. App. 1989). Multiple officers at a pic 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 becaus e 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 ginger snap rings and the blood spot were open to public view and because Hall had probable cause to believe that they were contraband and prima facie evidence of a crime, the state respectfully requests that this court deny the defendants motion to suppress these 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 vehicle The guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment recognizes a obligatory difference between a search of a store, dwelling house or other structure and a search of a ship, motor boat, wagon or auto liquid since it is not practicable to mend a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of t he 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 search, 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 saddle horn wrap is similar to the seizure that occurred in Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U. S. 583 (1974). In Cardwell, officers investigating a murder examined a release and took paint scrapings from the defendants car. The car was located in a public parking lot.In the courts mentation 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 text file 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 apply 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 audition (PH) Tr. , p. 12. ) 2 . Near a piss hole, *** Kings son, *** King, had fed white potato chips to one of the cows on July 13, 1995. 3 . The T-cross brand was the registered 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 newly 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 damages Co. , 106 Idaho 696 (Ct. App. 1984). 8 . Approximately one quarter mile. 9 . Approximately 2 miles from Tobias cabin. 10 . The brand was actually 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 creature used by him for running a brand on any stock is guilty of grand larceny. The possession of such iron or prick is prima facie evidence of guilt. 15 . The seizure of the pants is also similar, as both were items held out to public view.