PA: Private hunting lands were not open fields under state constitution

The Pennsylvania Constitution’s search and seizure provision extends to “possessions,” something broader than “effects” under the Fourth Amendment. The Pennsylvania court concludes that private hunting lands were not blanket open fields where wildlife officers could just enter. The court also looked to other states who also similarly limited the open fields doctrine. Punxsutawney Hunting Club, Inc. v. Pa. Game Comm’n, 2026 Pa. LEXIS 1275 (July 21, 2026), overruling Commonwealth v. Russo, 594 Pa. 119, 934 A.2d 1199 (2007).

“The District Court correctly concluded that the warrant affidavit, as reconstructed, still establishes probable cause to search the entirety of 308 Walnut Avenue. To correct the warrant affidavit, we replace the words ‘New Jersey Department of Taxation’ with ‘NJParcels.com.’ We also add that: the owner does not live at the address; there are two utility meters, two mailboxes, and different-colored doors; and a female is registered to vote there. These additional facts may raise questions about the reliability of the affiant’s characterization of the property. But they do not impact the probable cause analysis, particularly when the affidavit included information that both doors of the property were used in connection with drug transactions.” Underwood v. Camden, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 21549 (3d Cir. July 21, 2026).*