Oil and gas drilling is a highly regulated industry, and state officials did not violate the Fourth Amendment by an inspection to see if ground water was being contaminated. Defendants were indicted for injecting \u201cproduced water\u201d from a well into a sinkhole in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. United States v. Stinson, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41241 (W.D. Ky. March 25, 2013):<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
. . . However, Defendant Stinson argues that the open fields doctrine should not be extended beyond observation searches, and the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet’s Division of Water inspectors should be required to obtain a warrant before actually seizing evidence. (Def.’s Mot. to Suppress, [DN 50] (citing Rapanos, 115 F.3d at 372).) In response, the United States argues that “[b]ecause Defendant Stinson operates an oil and gas business that is highly regulated in the state of Kentucky, Stinson does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.” (U.S.’ Resp. 1 [DN 51].) The United States contends that inspecting and taking water samples from oil and gas facilities are authorized under KRS 224.10-100(10) and 401 K.A.R. 5:090, and the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection (KYDEP) may inspect and sample facilities that are involved in the improper disposal of waste. Furthermore, the United States argues that several other exceptions to the warrant requirement exist, such as open fields, abandoned property, and plain view.<\/p>\n
The United States argues that Defendant Stinson’s oil and gas production facilities fall under an exception to the warrant requirement as it is a closely regulated industry, and because of the nature of the regulation, no reasonable expectation of privacy exists. See New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987); … <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Back to blog<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading