New Location, Same Tradition: Goldstein & Orr Has Moved Offices Learn More

Client Testimonials
  • "I'm very impressed how Mrs. Orr handled everything, she is very professional and I recommend Mrs. Orr if your in need an attorney for a white collar case!!!" by Anonymous Former Client Read More
  • "They are next level on intelligence and understanding. My full respect to these attorneys." by Amber R. Read More
  • "They're the best, very thorough." by Doug T. Read More
  • "I was so fortunate and privileged to have Mr. Goldstein in my corner. You will find none better." by Stephen Read More
  • "GGH has no equal in Texas or elsewhere. Cynthia Orr and Gerry Goldstein don't just defend their clients, they make law. I've watched them over the years take impossible cases and win." by Debra I. Read More


In determining whether a non-physical intrusion constitutes a “search” requiring a warrant, courts had moved away from the “open fields” doctrine of Hester v. U.S., 265 U.S. 57, 44 S.Ct. 445, 68 L.Ed.2d 898 (1924) towards the Katz “reasonable expectation of privacy” “two distinct questions” analysis.

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed. (1979) [installation of pen-registers, two-tiered test]. “The first is whether the individual, by his conduct, has ‘exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy’, …whether …the individual has shown that ‘he seeks to preserve [something] as private The second question is whether the individual’s subjective expectation of privacy is ‘one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable’, …whether …the individual’s expectation, viewed objectively, is ‘justifiable’ under the circumstances.” Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. at 739.

However, the Supreme Court held Hester’s “open fields” doctrine still viable under Katz-type analysis. “Open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Fourth Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance”. Oliver v. U.S., 466 U.S. 170, 179, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 80 L.Ed.2d 214, 224 (1984).

In Oliver, the Court defined the term “open fields” to include “any unoccupied or undeveloped area outside the curtilage”. Oliver v. U.S.,  466 U.S. at 180.

(210) 226-1463
  1. Attorneys
  2. Results
  3. Contact