In Hester v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not protect open fields and that law enforcement officers do not need a warrant to search them, even if they are privately owned. The case involved two defendants who were convicted of illegally distilling spirits after federal agents trespassed on their property without a warrant and found incriminating evidence in an open field near their home. The defendants argued this constituted an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by government officials. However, the court disagreed stating that "the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to people in their persons, houses, papers and effects is not extended to open fields." This decision established what came to be known as “open-fields doctrine,” asserting that individuals cannot expect privacy for activities conducted out in the open regardless of whether or not those activities take place on private property.

In the dissenting opinion for Hester v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justice Louis Brandeis, argued that the Fourth Amendment should protect individuals from warrantless searches and seizures on private property. They believed that the majority's decision to allow evidence obtained without a warrant during an open-field search was inconsistent with constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The justices contended that even though officers were not physically intruding into a home or building, they were still invading personal privacy by conducting surveillance of private land without any legal authorization or probable cause. This view suggests a broader interpretation of Fourth Amendment rights than what was upheld in this case.