▁ ▁From ▁this ▁G illet te ▁derived ▁a ▁" simple ▁and ▁objective " ▁rule : ▁" A ▁person ▁who ▁wishes ▁to ▁preserve ▁a ▁constitution ally ▁protected ▁priv acy ▁interest ▁in ▁land ▁outside ▁the ▁cur til age ▁must ▁manifest ▁an ▁intention ▁to ▁exclude ▁the ▁public ▁by ▁ere ct ing ▁bar riers ▁to ▁entry , ▁such ▁as ▁f ences , ▁or ▁by ▁posting ▁signs ." ▁He ▁then ▁applied ▁the ▁rule ▁to ▁the ▁instant ▁case ▁and ▁found ▁that ▁it ▁did ▁not ▁apply ▁to ▁the ▁D ix s ons ▁since ▁the ▁signs ▁they ▁had ▁posted ▁on ▁the ▁road ▁to ▁their ▁house ▁bar red ▁only ▁hunting . ▁" There ▁was ▁no ▁objective ▁reason ▁for ▁the ▁officers ▁to ▁believe ▁that ▁... ▁other ▁uses ▁such ▁as ▁h ik ing ▁were ▁forb idden " ▁since ▁it ▁was ▁common ▁in ▁Oregon ▁for ▁those ▁uses ▁to ▁take ▁place ▁on ▁large ▁tract s ▁of ▁priv ately ▁owned ▁land ▁where ▁it ▁was ▁not ▁express ly ▁forb idden . ▁Therefore , ▁having ▁aff ir med ▁the ▁appe als ▁court ' s ▁re jection ▁of ▁the ▁open - fields ▁doctrine , ▁the ▁state ' s ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁revers ed ▁it ▁on ▁the ▁specific ▁issues ▁of ▁the ▁case ▁and ▁aff ir med ▁the ▁conv iction . ▁ ▁State ▁v . ▁Kir cho ff ▁ ▁A ▁case ▁that ▁had ▁begun ▁before ▁Oliver ▁provided ▁the ▁Verm ont ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁with ▁its ▁opportunity ▁to ▁consider ▁the ▁open - fields ▁doctrine ▁almost ▁a ▁de cade ▁later . ▁In ▁ 1 9 8 2 ▁Robert ▁Kir cho ff ▁bought ▁a ▁ ▁par cel