265 U.S. 57 (1924)
Hester was convicted in the District Court of concealing distilled spirits under Rev. Stats. § 3296.1 The case came directly to the Supreme Court from the District Court.2 The single ground for review was that by refusing to exclude the testimony of two witnesses and to direct a verdict for the defendant, the Court violated his rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
Revenue officers went toward the house of Hester’s father, where the plaintiff in error lived, after receiving information.3 They concealed themselves from fifty to one hundred yards away and saw Hester come out and hand Henderson a quart bottle.4 An alarm was given. Hester went to a car standing near, took a gallon jug from it and he and Henderson ran.5 One of the officers pursued and fired a pistol. Hester dropped his jug, which broke but kept about a quart of its contents. Henderson threw away his bottle also.6
The jug and bottle both contained what the officers, being experts, recognized as moonshine whiskey.7 The other officer entered the house, but being told there was no whiskey there left it, but found outside a jar that had been thrown out and broken and that also contained whiskey.8 While the officers were there other cars stopped at the house but were spoken to by Hester’s father and drove off.9 The officers had no warrant for search or arrest.10 It was assumed, on the strength of the pursuing officer’s saying that he supposed they were on Hester’s land, that such was the fact.11
Whether the District Court's refusal to exclude the testimony of the revenue officers and to direct a verdict for the defendant violated Hester's rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?12
In our constitutional system, the Fourth Amendment provides special protection to the people in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. This protection, however, does not extend to open fields. The distinction between open fields and the house itself is one that has been recognized since the earliest days of the common law. Furthermore, when items are abandoned by a defendant and his associates, the examination of those items by officers does not amount to a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Any claim that the defendant was compelled to incriminate himself under the Fifth Amendment is without substance in this context.13
No. Revenue officers went toward the house of Hester’s father, where the plaintiff in error lived, after receiving information.14 They concealed themselves from fifty to one hundred yards away and saw Hester come out and hand Henderson a quart bottle. An alarm was given. Hester went to a car standing near, took a gallon jug from it and he and Henderson ran. One of the officers pursued and fired a pistol. Hester dropped his jug, which broke but kept about a quart of its contents. Henderson threw away his bottle also. The jug and bottle both contained what the officers, being experts, recognized as moonshine whiskey. The other officer entered the house, but being told there was no whiskey there left it, but found outside a jar that had been thrown out and broken and that also contained whiskey. While the officers were there other cars stopped at the house but were spoken to by Hester’s father and drove off. The officers had no warrant for search or arrest. It was assumed, on the strength of the pursuing officer’s saying that he supposed they were on Hester’s land, that such was the fact.
The defendant's own acts, and those of his associates, disclosed the jug, the jar and the bottle. There was no seizure in the sense of the law when the officers examined the contents of each after it had been abandoned. This evidence was not obtained by the entry into the house and it is immaterial to discuss that. The Fourth Amendment does not protect the open fields where the officers made their observations and recovered the abandoned items. The Fifth Amendment provides no basis for excluding the testimony because the defendant was not compelled to give evidence against himself.15
The principle that open fields receive no Fourth Amendment protection means that observations made from a distance of fifty to one hundred yards, even if on land associated with the defendant, do not trigger the warrant requirement.16 The officers were able to see the handoff of the bottle and the subsequent flight without intruding upon any protected space.17 This aligns with the common law understanding that open areas outside the curtilage of the home are not subject to the same privacy expectations.18 When Hester and Henderson discarded the jug and bottle while fleeing, those items were abandoned. The officers' subsequent examination of the whiskey inside did not involve any seizure because the containers were no longer in the possession of the individuals. This abandonment principle ensures that evidence left in plain view in open areas can be used without violating constitutional rights.19
The District Court's refusal to exclude the testimony of the revenue officers and to direct a verdict for the defendant did not violate Hester's rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.20