People v. Rotar
357 N.W.2d 885, 137 Mich. App. 540 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures does not extend to evidence discovered in 'open fields,' even if located on private property, because individuals have no legitimate expectation of privacy in such areas.
Facts:
- Hija Rotar was purchasing property on a land contract from George Wakefield.
- Radmila Rotar, Hija Rotar's wife, disappeared.
- George Wakefield spread a manure pile over a field on the property.
- Wakefield discovered a skull and other bones, including a lower jawbone with dental work later identified as Radmila Rotar's, in the manure pile.
- The skull was located in the field approximately one-quarter mile from the road, and the field was fenced on only two sides without obstructions like a gate or signs.
- Neighbors reported the discovery of the skull to Detective Quain, who was the chief investigating officer in Radmila Rotar's disappearance case.
- Radmila Rotar had filed for divorce against Hija Rotar, a fact Hija Rotar claimed he did not know.
- Hija Rotar was alleged to be the last person to see Radmila alive, provided inconsistent stories about her disappearance, and later inquired about the manure pile.
Procedural Posture:
- Hija Rotar was charged with the second-degree murder of his wife, Radmila Rotar.
- A jury in the trial court convicted Hija Rotar of second-degree murder.
- Hija Rotar was sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Hija Rotar (appellant) appealed his conviction as of right to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fourth Amendment require the suppression of evidence, specifically human remains, discovered without a warrant in an 'open field' located on property the defendant was purchasing, when the discovery was made by a private citizen and subsequently investigated by police?
Opinions:
Majority - Beasley, J.
No, the Fourth Amendment does not require the suppression of evidence discovered under these circumstances because the 'open fields' doctrine dictates that there is no legitimate expectation of privacy in such areas. The court found that Hija Rotar had abandoned the real property, severing any reasonable expectation of privacy. Furthermore, even absent abandonment, the bones were in an 'open field' and subject to search under the 'open fields' doctrine, which the Supreme Court reaffirmed in Oliver v United States. This doctrine establishes that individuals cannot legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted outdoors in fields, except for the area immediately surrounding the home (curtilage), as such areas do not provide the setting for intimate activities the Fourth Amendment is intended to protect. The court also agreed that George Wakefield was not acting as an agent of the police during his discovery. Additionally, the court ruled that evidence of Radmila Rotar having filed for divorce was admissible as circumstantial evidence of marital disharmony, which could provide a motive, regardless of Hija Rotar's knowledge of the divorce filing. The court also found sufficient evidence for the jury to consider a charge of first-degree murder based on surrounding circumstances and upheld the trial court's other rulings regarding venue, witness instructions, and sentencing.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the long-standing 'open fields' doctrine, clearly distinguishing between the constitutionally protected curtilage and unprotected open areas. It clarifies that factors such as fences or 'no trespassing' signs do not create a legitimate expectation of privacy in open fields, thereby expanding the scope of warrantless police access to such land. The decision also broadens the admissibility of evidence for motive, allowing circumstantial proof of marital discord even if the defendant was unaware of specific actions like a divorce filing, provided it supports a reasonable inference. This approach can facilitate investigations in rural areas and in cases where direct evidence of motive or exact location of a crime is elusive.
