# Pearson v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · March 21, 1978 · 356 So. 2d 776

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7489539

## Case

- **Full name:** James A. Pearson v. State.
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** March 21, 1978
- **Citations:** 356 So. 2d 776; 1978 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1309
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bookout
- **Judges:** Simmons, Bookout
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7489539

## Opinion text

BOOKOUT, Judge,
concurring specially:
From a vacant lot adjoining the appellant’s premises, the officers could see the items of clothing lying in plain view on the back steps of appellant’s residence. Their initial discovery of that evidence was therefore not illegal or the results of an unreasonable “search” in violation of the Fourth Amendment. They were not therefore required to obtain a search warrant in order to cross the invisible property line into appellant’s open back yard to retrieve the clothing lying in an open area. The Fourth Amendment protects people, not simply places. The appellant had no expectation of privacy in that area of his back yard open to view to any passers-by. Cf. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 , 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364 , 88 S.Ct. 2120 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1154 (1968); Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583 , 94 S.Ct. 2464 , 41 L.Ed.2d 325 (1974); United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 , 96 S.Ct. 2406 , 49 L.Ed.2d 300 (1976); United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 , 96 S.Ct. 1619 , 48 L.Ed.2d 71 (1976); South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976). I therefore would assign the foregoing as additional authority for the warrantless seizure of the clothing in question.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7489539. Public record. Not legal advice.