The issue of what, if any, protection the Fourth Amendment and its state counter- parts give to the home that is not a house recently surfaced in three decisions of panels of the Washington, Oregon, and California courts of appeals, which reached conflicting decisions on nearly identical facts. Descriptively, this Article argues that property-law concepts continue to play an outsized role in judicial determinations of the reasonableness of individuals’ expectations of privacy in particular areas. As a result, courts have a hierarchy of Fourth Amendment protection, with the “home” at its center. Conversely, courts tend to find that trespassers categorically lack constitutional privacy protection on the lands on which they trespass, often relying on assumption-of-risk logic. The court opinions discussing the sanctity of the “home” and the peril of the trespasser contemplate only brick-and-mortar structures occupied by individuals with either a deed or a lease to the premises.

中文翻译：

---

狂野的西部：无家可归者在营地中的隐私权

最近华盛顿、俄勒冈州和加利福尼亚州上诉法院的三项裁决中出现了第四修正案及其各州对非房屋的保护（如果有的话）的问题，这些裁决达成了相互矛盾的裁决基于几乎相同的事实。描述性地，本文认为财产法概念继续在司法确定个人对特定领域隐私期望的合理性方面发挥着巨大的作用。因此，法院具有第四修正案保护的等级制度，以“家”为中心。相反，法院倾向于发现侵入者在他们侵入的土地上绝对缺乏宪法隐私保护，通常依赖于风险承担逻辑。