In Oliver v. United States (1983), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police officers do not need a warrant to search open fields, even if they are privately owned and regardless of whether there is a "No Trespassing" sign posted. The case involved two defendants who were growing marijuana on their private property in secluded areas not visible from public land or airspace. They argued that the Fourth Amendment protected them from unreasonable searches without warrants on their own property, but the court disagreed with this interpretation of privacy rights under the Constitution. Instead, it held that an individual's expectation of privacy in open fields was not reasonable and therefore did not fall within Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful searches and seizures.

In the dissenting opinion for Oliver v. United States, Justice Marshall argued that the majority's decision to allow warrantless searches of open fields was a significant departure from established Fourth Amendment principles. He contended that this ruling ignored an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy and instead focused solely on societal expectations, which he believed were not always aligned with constitutional rights. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on historical justifications for their interpretation of "open fields," stating it lacked relevance in modern society where property ownership often extends beyond one's immediate dwelling area. Additionally, Justice Brennan also dissented arguing that people should have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their private property regardless if it is immediately surrounding their home or not.