If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   Court rules that police can put video cameras on private property without a warrant. So yeah, you aren't allowed to remove that cam you found in your bathroom. It's legal...stuff   (arstechnica.com) divider line 178
    More: Asinine, private property, Fourth Amendment, court ruling, expectation of privacy, Malaga, Katz, thermal imaging, lawsuits  
•       •       •

17630 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Oct 2012 at 5:09 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-30 09:06:43 PM
Oh you can best believe this will go to the USSC. Stuff like this is the meat and potatoes of USSC rulings. I personally think the read it too narrow. The decision will be interesting.
 
2012-10-30 09:18:34 PM
Moral: keep your friends close, and your weed closer.
 
2012-10-30 09:19:42 PM
Maybe I can't move it, but I can damn well hang my panties on it so they can't see anything.

/come at me, bros-in-blue
 
2012-10-30 09:22:38 PM

ladyfortuna: Maybe I can't move it, but I can damn well hang my panties on it so they can't see anything.

/come at me, bros-in-blue


i'd patch into the video feed and make the cops watch hours and hours of spongebob squarepants.
 
2012-10-30 09:23:24 PM
This bit is interesting though: "The government also briefly argues that there was no Fourth Amendment search because neither Mendoza nor Magana owned or leased the Property. The court need not address this argument because: (1) it is arguably underdeveloped; (2) the record does not disclose whether Mendoza or Magana leased the Property; and (3) as set forth below, the motion can be denied on other grounds"

Millions of people rent or lease their dwelling, yet somehow if they leased this field they aren't protected in some fashion? Because if that's the case, then neither are normal apartment renters.
 
2012-10-30 09:24:40 PM

Weaver95: i'd patch into the video feed and make the cops watch hours and hours of spongebob squarepants.


Make it Barney instead.
 
2012-10-30 09:25:25 PM

Mrbogey: Oh you can best believe this will go to the USSC. Stuff like this is the meat and potatoes of USSC rulings. I personally think the read it too narrow. The decision will be interesting.


And the Republicans on the USSC will stand up for personal liberty and uphold the ruling.
 
2012-10-30 09:26:49 PM
www.funnychill.com


I'm gonna' need to print more stickers now
 
2012-10-30 09:27:47 PM
criminalbrief.com
dvdmedia.ign.com
www.austincnm.com
Be seeing you
 
2012-10-30 09:28:01 PM

ladyfortuna: This bit is interesting though: "The government also briefly argues that there was no Fourth Amendment search because neither Mendoza nor Magana owned or leased the Property. The court need not address this argument because: (1) it is arguably underdeveloped; (2) the record does not disclose whether Mendoza or Magana leased the Property; and (3) as set forth below, the motion can be denied on other grounds"

Millions of people rent or lease their dwelling, yet somehow if they leased this field they aren't protected in some fashion? Because if that's the case, then neither are normal apartment renters.


Read it again.
 
2012-10-30 09:28:18 PM

ladyfortuna: This bit is interesting though: "The government also briefly argues that there was no Fourth Amendment search because neither Mendoza nor Magana owned or leased the Property. The court need not address this argument because: (1) it is arguably underdeveloped; (2) the record does not disclose whether Mendoza or Magana leased the Property; and (3) as set forth below, the motion can be denied on other grounds"

Millions of people rent or lease their dwelling, yet somehow if they leased this field they aren't protected in some fashion? Because if that's the case, then neither are normal apartment renters.


that actually sounds about right. cops aren't fond of the bill of rights. narrowing down the 4th amendment makes their lives MUCH easier.
 
2012-10-30 09:28:22 PM

SilentStrider: Weaver95: i'd patch into the video feed and make the cops watch hours and hours of spongebob squarepants.

Make it Barney instead.


QVC. True punishment.
 
2012-10-30 09:33:12 PM
First off, it was the District Court, not a Circuit Court or the Supreme Court. Not only that, but it's a Wisconsin District Court, so this decision is binding only in that court's jurisdiction. So before all of you go off screaming about the destruction of our civil liberties, slow down.

Second, if this gets appealed, I think there's a decent chance the Circuit Court will decide to follow the reasoning of United States v. Jones and rule that any continuous warrantless trespassing is unconstitutional.

Third, this does make some sense under the old doctrine, where the Court (arguably sensibly) ruled that you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy on your property miles from where you actually live.
 
2012-10-30 09:45:23 PM
Meh, this one will stand.

/the police have been doing this a while now
 
2012-10-30 09:48:27 PM

Weaver95: ladyfortuna: Maybe I can't move it, but I can damn well hang my panties on it so they can't see anything.

/come at me, bros-in-blue

i'd patch into the video feed and make the cops watch hours and hours of spongebob squarepants.


ARE YA READY KIDS?
 
2012-10-30 09:48:50 PM
the Open Fields Doctrine they refer to is pretty clear that unless it's within a white picket fence around your house, you have no 4th amendment protections.

I can't find the Fark link, but I remember an article a few years back about a guy who was fined for poaching red-tailed hawks on his property by surveillance camera placed without a warrant. An excerpt from the Court of Appeals decision:

"The open-fields doctrine was clarified in Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984). There, the Supreme Court considered two cases in which marijuana was being grown in wooded areas on the defendants' properties. In one instance, the police walked around a locked gate with a "No Trespassing" sign, passed a barn and parked camper, and continued after someone shouted at them to leave. A mile from the defendant's house, they found the marijuana field. Id. at 173. In the other case, police followed a path between the defendant's residence and the neighboring house into the woods until they saw two marijuana patches surrounded by chicken wire. Upholding both searches, the Court held that "an individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of doors in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home [the curtilage]." Id. at 178. The Court further noted, "An open field need be neither 'open' nor a 'field' as those terms are used in common speech. For example . . . a thickly wooded area nonetheless may be an open field as that term is used in construing the Fourth Amendment." Id. at 180 n.11. In United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294

So yeah, this isn't anything new, and these guys are screwed.
 
2012-10-30 09:53:35 PM

Rincewind53: First off, it was the District Court, not a Circuit Court or the Supreme Court. Not only that, but it's a Wisconsin District Court, so this decision is binding only in that court's jurisdiction. So before all of you go off screaming about the destruction of our civil liberties, slow down.

Second, if this gets appealed, I think there's a decent chance the Circuit Court will decide to follow the reasoning of United States v. Jones and rule that any continuous warrantless trespassing is unconstitutional.

Third, this does make some sense under the old doctrine, where the Court (arguably sensibly) ruled that you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy on your property miles from where you actually live.


How about 60 yards from where you live?

United States v. Dunn
 
2012-10-30 09:58:59 PM
i49.tinypic.com
Ceiling cam is watching you... well, just watching you

/constantly
 
2012-10-30 10:37:10 PM
"We've got bush!"

/obscure?
 
2012-10-30 10:38:39 PM
so um
can I put a gps tracking device on another person's car?
I can legally follow that person, therefore, I should be able to legally follow them electronically.
right?
LOL

/keep in mind, I am not talking about stalking. just following, at a distance. never, ever approaching them.
/I am so going to get my dumbass arrested one of these days just to see what happens.
 
2012-10-30 10:41:48 PM

namatad: so um
can I put a gps tracking device on another person's car?
I can legally follow that person, therefore, I should be able to legally follow them electronically.
right?
LOL

/keep in mind, I am not talking about stalking. just following, at a distance. never, ever approaching them.
/I am so going to get my dumbass arrested one of these days just to see what happens.


.... I can't tell if you're doing this on purpose, but that was the exact question and the exact analogy addressed last year by the Supreme Court. The answer is no, the police cannot, without a warrant.
 
2012-10-30 10:41:58 PM
Solution:
static.igossip.com
 
2012-10-30 10:43:07 PM
Now, subby seems to indicate that because it's legal for them to put it there, it's illegal for you to remove it. Is that necessarily the case?
 
2012-10-30 10:52:08 PM

GAT_00: And the Republicans on the USSC will stand up for personal liberty and uphold the ruling.


Uh huh....Like they did with New London? Can you explain your reasoning?
 
2012-10-30 10:54:36 PM

Mrbogey: GAT_00: And the Republicans on the USSC will stand up for personal liberty and uphold the ruling.

Uh huh....Like they did with New London? Can you explain your reasoning?


Kelo was an atrocity and Republicans will uphold any police state regulations that come before the court.
 
2012-10-30 11:05:30 PM

GAT_00: Kelo was an atrocity and Republicans will uphold any police state regulations that come before the court.


Kelo vs New London was dissented by the 4 more conservative judges. Do you actually read their decisions?
 
2012-10-30 11:06:26 PM

Mrbogey: GAT_00: Kelo was an atrocity and Republicans will uphold any police state regulations that come before the court.

Kelo vs New London was dissented by the 4 more conservative judges. Do you actually read their decisions?


Kelo had nothing to do with a police state. I'm not joining your apples to potatoes comparison.
 
2012-10-30 11:23:26 PM

ladyfortuna: This bit is interesting though: "The government also briefly argues that there was no Fourth Amendment search because neither Mendoza nor Magana owned or leased the Property. The court need not address this argument because: (1) it is arguably underdeveloped; (2) the record does not disclose whether Mendoza or Magana leased the Property; and (3) as set forth below, the motion can be denied on other grounds"

Millions of people rent or lease their dwelling, yet somehow if they leased this field they aren't protected in some fashion? Because if that's the case, then neither are normal apartment renters.


Dude, they said right there that the record didn't disclose whether or not they leased the property. Absent that, the court didn't have to consider whether or not they "owned or leased" the property they had the pot plants on.
 
2012-10-30 11:24:05 PM

GAT_00: Kelo had nothing to do with a police state. I'm not joining your apples to potatoes comparison.


GAT_00: Kelo was an atrocity and Republicans will uphold any police state regulations that come before the court.

 
2012-10-30 11:29:59 PM

Lsherm: GAT_00: Kelo had nothing to do with a police state. I'm not joining your apples to potatoes comparison.

GAT_00: Kelo was an atrocity and Republicans will uphold any police state regulations that come before the court.


It makes sense; the first time, he was implictly rejecting the Kelo comparison and turning the discussion back to police state regulations. The second time, he did it explicitly.
 
2012-10-30 11:31:16 PM

Lsherm: GAT_00: Kelo had nothing to do with a police state. I'm not joining your apples to potatoes comparison.

GAT_00: Kelo was an atrocity and Republicans will uphold any police state regulations that come before the court.


Yes, good job, you found the quote button.
 
2012-10-30 11:35:13 PM

Rincewind53: Lsherm: GAT_00: Kelo had nothing to do with a police state. I'm not joining your apples to potatoes comparison.

GAT_00: Kelo was an atrocity and Republicans will uphold any police state regulations that come before the court.

It makes sense; the first time, he was implictly rejecting the Kelo comparison and turning the discussion back to police state regulations. The second time, he did it explicitly.


Yeah, they aren't the same thing at all. Kelo had nothing to do with police and it was a stupid ruling. Probably the worst ruling that batch has issued. One of the few times the four conservative justices got it right. That being said, upholding police actions usually comes from the right.
 
2012-10-30 11:42:21 PM

Lsherm: ladyfortuna: This bit is interesting though: "The government also briefly argues that there was no Fourth Amendment search because neither Mendoza nor Magana owned or leased the Property. The court need not address this argument because: (1) it is arguably underdeveloped; (2) the record does not disclose whether Mendoza or Magana leased the Property; and (3) as set forth below, the motion can be denied on other grounds"

Millions of people rent or lease their dwelling, yet somehow if they leased this field they aren't protected in some fashion? Because if that's the case, then neither are normal apartment renters.

Dude, they said right there that the record didn't disclose whether or not they leased the property. Absent that, the court didn't have to consider whether or not they "owned or leased" the property they had the pot plants on.


I know that.

However, the fact that this is included at all is disturbing, and implies that even though they didn't own it, if they were leasing it, that wouldn't necessarily be considered protection. Maybe I'm just reading between the lines, but would it really surprise anyone here if that were the case?
 
2012-10-31 12:21:10 AM

ladyfortuna: Lsherm: ladyfortuna: This bit is interesting though: "The government also briefly argues that there was no Fourth Amendment search because neither Mendoza nor Magana owned or leased the Property. The court need not address this argument because: (1) it is arguably underdeveloped; (2) the record does not disclose whether Mendoza or Magana leased the Property; and (3) as set forth below, the motion can be denied on other grounds"

Millions of people rent or lease their dwelling, yet somehow if they leased this field they aren't protected in some fashion? Because if that's the case, then neither are normal apartment renters.

Dude, they said right there that the record didn't disclose whether or not they leased the property. Absent that, the court didn't have to consider whether or not they "owned or leased" the property they had the pot plants on.

I know that.

However, the fact that this is included at all is disturbing, and implies that even though they didn't own it, if they were leasing it, that wouldn't necessarily be considered protection. Maybe I'm just reading between the lines, but would it really surprise anyone here if that were the case?


Well it wouldn't surprise me, but the way they wrote it implies they didn't consider it at all, which at least leaves it open to interpretation in the future if there is a claim for ownership/leasing.
 
2012-10-31 02:47:38 AM
I've watched a lot of Law & Order so doesn't this become one of those cases where the placement of the camera prior to the warrant is a poison tree thing, where all evidence recovered as a result of it becomes inadmissable?


/Not a lawyer. I crunch numbers. And watch a lot of shows with the word "Star" in the name.
 
2012-10-31 03:35:59 AM

basemetal: Meh, this one will stand.

/the police have been doing this a while now


Yep.
 
2012-10-31 05:13:19 AM
pfft. they watch me fondle grapefruit now in the grocery store for my own safety

*waves at big brother*
 
2012-10-31 05:20:39 AM

Mrbogey: Oh you can best believe this will go to the USSC. Stuff like this is the meat and potatoes of USSC rulings. I personally think the read it too narrow. The decision will be interesting.


Another reason to vote for Obama. If a President Rmoney appoints a couple of mini-Scalias, we'll soon be having cameras mounted in our bathrooms to report us if we fap.
 
2012-10-31 05:21:51 AM
In Texas, any evidence collected in violation of a law is excluded.
Entering gated property with a no-tresspassing sign (without consent) is a violation of the law.
Therefore, Texas is the best state.
 
2012-10-31 05:24:50 AM
The fascist states of america. ya!
 
2012-10-31 05:26:37 AM

nvmac: SilentStrider: Weaver95: i'd patch into the video feed and make the cops watch hours and hours of spongebob squarepants.

Make it Barney instead.

QVC. Two and a half men. True punishment.

 

FTFY
 
2012-10-31 05:28:20 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-31 05:33:53 AM

Rincewind53: First off, it was the District Court, not a Circuit Court or the Supreme Court. Not only that, but it's a Wisconsin District Court, so this decision is binding only in that court's jurisdiction. So before all of you go off screaming about the destruction of our civil liberties, slow down.

Second, if this gets appealed, I think there's a decent chance the Circuit Court will decide to follow the reasoning of United States v. Jones and rule that any continuous warrantless trespassing is unconstitutional.

Third, this does make some sense under the old doctrine, where the Court (arguably sensibly) ruled that you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy on your property miles from where you actually live.


Uh huh. And aerial surveys and spy satellites will get warrants every morning too. Sure.

It's a camera in a field, not in a house. As TFA and the court made clear.
 
2012-10-31 05:34:08 AM

Fark Me To Tears: "We've got bush!"

/obscure?


In what universe is revenge of the nerds obscure?
 
2012-10-31 05:36:51 AM

TV's Vinnie: Mrbogey: Oh you can best believe this will go to the USSC. Stuff like this is the meat and potatoes of USSC rulings. I personally think the read it too narrow. The decision will be interesting.

Another reason to vote for Obama. If a President Rmoney appoints a couple of mini-Scalias, we'll soon be having cameras mounted in our bathrooms to report us if we fap.


What I love is none of you pay attention to how the judges vote, nothing will change if they appoint conservative judges, it would probably be better since they are more rational than judges appointed by dem presidents.

And the way I read that is nothing is protected if you do it on property you don't own or have legal right to be there, which they haven't proven. Its basically telling their lawyers to go back and get documentation that they had a contract to be there and they will listen to arguments again.

Subby is a nervous nellie.
 
2012-10-31 05:38:32 AM

Shadow Blasko: Fark Me To Tears: "We've got bush!"

/obscure?

In what universe is revenge of the nerds obscure?


"Hair pie? O sthank you!!"
 
2012-10-31 05:39:39 AM

Weaver95: i'd patch into the video feed and make the cops watch hours and hours of spongebob squarepants.



furry yiffing for 30 minutes
dora the explorer for 30 minutes
repeat
 
2012-10-31 05:44:19 AM
You know, I'd rather go to Russia than I'd go to the states these days.
 
2012-10-31 05:48:20 AM

steamingpile: What I love is none of you pay attention to how the judges vote, nothing will change if they appoint conservative judges, it would probably be better since they are more rational than judges appointed by dem presidents.


Scalia? "Rational"?

i204.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-31 05:49:44 AM

MadSkillz: I've watched a lot of Law & Order so doesn't this become one of those cases where the placement of the camera prior to the warrant is a poison tree thing, where all evidence recovered as a result of it becomes inadmissable?


/Not a lawyer. I crunch numbers. And watch a lot of shows with the word "Star" in the name.


No, the later evidence wouldn't be consider "fruit of the posionous tree" because the police obtained a search warrant after the camera, making whatever evidence they found after the search warrant legal in that it was obtained seperate from the camera. Now if images from the camera were used in as probable cause in obtaining the search warrent than there maybe an issue but on a guess I'm going to say the camera wasn't used as the police were tipped off enough to believe that the area "needed" a warrentless camera to begin with. Plus, probable cause has to be established in writing so they could have thrown somthing together to get a judge to grant them a warrent.

//Criminal Justice Major
///Camera was BS
////Slashie
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report