Background
[J-20-2025] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT TODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, McCAFFERY, JJ. PUNXSUTAWNEY HUNTING CLUB, INC., : No. 23 WAP 2023 AND PITCH PINE HUNTING CLUB, INC., : : Appeal from The Order of the Appellants : Commonwealth Court entered : September 29, 2023, at : No. 456 MD 2021. v. : : ARGUED: April 9, 2025 : PENNSYLVANIA GAME COMMISSION, : AND MARK GRITZER, IN HIS OFFICIAL : CAPACITY AS AN OFFICER OF THE : PENNSYLVANIA GAME COMMISSION, : : Appellees : OPINION JUSTICE BROBSON DECIDED: JULY 21, 2026 Open fields are afforded no constitutional protection from warrantless searches and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.1 In, Commonwealth v. Russo, 934 A.2d 1199 (Pa. 2007), this Court held that the protections 1 The Fourth Amendment provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. IV. afforded under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution2 also do not extend to open fields.
Russo In Russo, this Court examined whether, under Article I, Section 8, “a landowner has a reasonable expectation of privacy against enforcement of . . . [the] Code in his open fields.” Russo, 934 A.2d at 1200 . There, the appellant, Joseph Russo (Russo), killed a 2 Article I, Section 8 provides: The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation subscribed to by the affiant. C.S. §§ 101-2965. [J-20-2025] – 2 bear on his private, wooded property in Wyoming County, approximately nine minutes after the opening of Pennsylvania’s bear-hunting season. After Russo transferred the bear to the Commission’s nearby station for examination and tagging, the Commission received a tip that Russo’s hunting camp had been “baited” in violation of Section 2308(a)(8) of the Code, 34 Pa. Several Commission officers entered Russo’s property, which was posted with “[n]o [t]respassing” signs, without a warrant and found several large piles of “apple mash” as well as a corn feeder close to Russo’s cabin. The officers also noticed a large indentation in the apple mash consistent with a bear having lain there, a clearly identifiable paw print, leaves containing blood droplets, and other evidence indicating that a bear had eaten at the bait piles located on Russo’s property.
The Court’s Holding
conclusion unnecessarily limits the (continued…) [J-20-2025] [MO: Brobson, J.] – 4 Privacy rights cannot and do not depend upon a landowner’s decision or ability to staple signs to a tree or to erect fences. To impose such requirements is to ignore the fact that each home, property, usage, and terrain is different. Each implicates concerns of its own, which are necessarily idiosyncratic. Because the Majority’s approach unnecessarily will abridge landowners’ privacy rights, it will likely spawn suppression litigation in our trial courts. Fencing often is unaffordable or even impossible on large plots, or across difficult terrains and topographies. Privacy rights are not enjoyed only by those who can afford or manage to fence their entire property. Does a landowner who uses chain link fence, which creates no visual barrier to the property, have a greater claim to privacy than the person who puts up no fence at all, merely because the former has used some form of fencing? How many signs must one nail to a tree in order to safeguard one’s expectation of privacy? For the one-acre suburban plot, is one sign enough? This arbitrary bifurcation of privacy rights will compel law enforcement officers to make rapid, on-the-beat determinations of whether a landowner has undertaken sufficient efforts to ensure his privacy. Mistakes will lead to trespass accusations and unlawful seizures of evidence. Instead of inducing law enforcement officers to risk such errors, and instead of separating property owners into the haves and the have-nots, we should demand of our government agents what our Constitution requires: get a search warrant. A landowner either has an expectation of privacy or he does not.
The decision applies Pennsylvania law to the issues preserved in this appeal and explains the governing standard in the court’s own terms. The disposition controls the parties’ next steps and supplies guidance for litigants confronting the same procedural or substantive question.
Key Takeaways
- conclusion unnecessarily limits the (continued…) [J-20-2025] [MO: Brobson, J.] – 4 Privacy rights cannot and do not depend upon a landowner’s decision or ability to staple signs to a tree or to erect fences.
- To impose such requirements is to ignore the fact that each home, property, usage, and terrain is different.
- Each implicates concerns of its own, which are necessarily idiosyncratic.
Why It Matters
Court issues a substantive appellate ruling Pennsylvania practitioners should read the ruling with particular attention to the court’s treatment of preservation, the applicable standard, and the remedy. Those points will shape how comparable claims are framed in trial courts and reviewed on appeal.