▁come ▁on ▁that ▁property ▁without ▁his ▁permission . ▁ ▁In ▁the ▁absence ▁of ▁those ▁more ▁specific ▁just ifications , ▁the ▁state ▁had ▁c ited ▁the ▁open - fields ▁doctrine ▁as ▁to ▁how ▁the ▁w ard ens ' ▁un inv ited ▁presence ▁on ▁public ▁land ▁was ▁legal . ▁" The ▁state ▁is ▁wrong ", ▁Brad ley ▁wrote . ▁" The ▁open ▁fields ▁doctrine ▁does ▁not ▁transform ▁private ▁fields ▁into ▁public ▁places ▁that ▁anyone ▁is ▁free ▁to ▁enter ▁un inv ited ▁or ▁without ▁reason . ▁Nor ▁does ▁it ▁convert ▁the ▁act ▁of ▁tres pass ing ▁into ▁a ▁law ful ▁intr usion ." ▁It ▁existed , ▁she ▁assert ed , ▁only ▁to ▁prevent ▁the ▁supp ression ▁of ▁evidence ▁gathered ▁by ▁intr us ions ▁into ▁the ▁areas ▁it ▁covered , ▁and ▁could ▁not ▁be ▁extended ▁to ▁justify ▁St iet z ' s ▁arrest . ▁" The ▁open ▁fields ▁exception ▁to ▁the ▁Four th ▁Am end ment ' s ▁war rant ▁requirement ▁was ▁not ▁intended ▁to ▁eliminate ▁property ▁own ers ' ▁rights ▁by ▁san ction ing ▁entry ▁onto ▁open ▁land ▁at ▁any ▁time ▁for ▁any ▁reason , ▁or ▁no ▁reason ▁at ▁all ", ▁she ▁re iter ated , ▁cit ing ▁Bul lock , ▁D ix son , ▁Johnson ▁and ▁Scott ▁in ▁a ▁foot note . ▁ ▁D issent ing ▁justice ▁An net te ▁Z ieg ler ▁wrote ▁for ▁herself ▁and ▁Michael ▁G able man . ▁She ▁primarily ▁took ▁issue ▁with ▁the ▁majority ▁opinion , ▁primarily ▁arg uing ▁that ▁the ▁w ard ens ▁did ▁have ▁reasonable ▁susp icion ▁and