Final answer:
The statement that open fields and woods do not have Fourth Amendment protections despite fencing or no trespassing signs, as held by SCOTUS, is true. Option 1 is correct.
Step-by-step explanation:
In addressing the question, 'SCOTUS has held that the outlying areas are "open fields and woods" despite fencing and other barriers and that no trespassing signs may create a criminal or civil obligation but they do not create a reasonable expectation of privacy protected by the 4th amendment,' it is important to understand how the Fourth Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The statement in the question is true.
According to important court decisions, notably Oliver v. United States, areas such as fields and woods, even if fenced or marked with no trespassing signs, are not afforded the same expectation of privacy as one's home or private property that is immediately surrounding a home, like an enclosed backyard also known as the curtilage. As such, these areas do not receive the same Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Properties outside the curtilage, such as open fields, can be entered and searched by law enforcement without a warrant, and this does not constitute a Fourth Amendment violation.