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  
•       •       •

17633 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
 
2012-10-31 05:57:54 AM
I agree that the cops should have got a warrant first, but I still don't like it that the only reason the defendants challenged the photos was to keep evidence that could help get them convicted out of court and therefore avoid the consequences for their actions.
 
2012-10-31 06:00:34 AM
if a cam is found on my property anywhere it will accidentally fall from its mount into a muddy puddle that magically appeared below it lens first. if it is not clearly labeled with all contact information how do i know it wasn't placed by the perv across town trying to get a glimpse of my child playing in my yard. nothing says i cant move it where i like just that if it does not point at my house and its immediate surroundings that it does not need a warrant to be placed.

though the patch in with SB or barney is an interesting idea as well. i like it :)
 
2012-10-31 06:04:38 AM
Nope, video patch should be either endless loop of Team America Puke Scene, F**k YEAH!! or severely amateurish p0rn0 where the participants are uh, unsavoury, and absolutely EVERYTHING that can possibly go wrong goes wrong.
 
2012-10-31 06:07:11 AM
Don't forget to accidentally make the camera watching the camera fall into a muddy puddle.
 
2012-10-31 06:07:27 AM
The officers installed the cameras in an open field

You have no expectation of privacy. Sorry, the police and the judge are right this time.
 
2012-10-31 06:08:57 AM
I think it makes perfect sense.

The cops found weed out in a field, with no way to identify who owned or used the land. Had they just hung out and waiting for someone to show up and water the plants, that would have been okay. Putting the camera up was ruled to be okay.

......Putting the camera up should not have been okay, but what the hell? The camera was pointed at an illegal marijuana crop, not looking inside their bedroom window.
 
2012-10-31 06:12:37 AM

Public Savant: You know, I'd rather go to Russia than I'd go to the states these days.


You're English so good, could make it big time in USA!
 
2012-10-31 06:13:26 AM
Setting aside the criminal activity of pot growing, I need some clarity. I own a house, and I also have access to some private property, say about 10 miles away. It's not mine, the owner has put up signs indicating trespassers are not allowed, but he gives me the key to the gate. I go out with my kids, we go fishing in the stocked pond, and Fish and Wildlife show up to bust us because we don't have current fishing permits, or life preservers on board, or whatever. Their argument is they are in charge of all non-domestic animals in the area, private land or not, so zero tolerance, blah, blah, blah. So, what happens now? I fight on jurisdictional grounds, or just pay the fines and accept the new limits on my kids learning to drown worms?

Since I try not to engage in overtly criminal acts too often, I'm trying to modify the situation to something I might actually experience before I completely freak out.
 
2012-10-31 06:16:33 AM

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.


I nominate Pair of Kings.
I feel my IQ drain every time my son watches it
 
2012-10-31 06:17:27 AM
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
 
2012-10-31 06:18:40 AM
Most of the time fishing permits are not required if the pond is on private property so there is a start...
 
2012-10-31 06:21:30 AM

The Southern Dandy: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 574x357]


ok I lol'd
 
2012-10-31 06:21:43 AM
d27fcql9yjk2c0.cloudfront.net
 
2012-10-31 06:24:49 AM
The way it was described in the article makes perfect sense. Neither of them own or reside in that field so they have no inherent right to privacy and so the cops can come in and try to catch people doing illegal things in that field. Simple enough.
 
2012-10-31 06:32:06 AM
They may have not owned it, but judging from the fact that the police needed a search warrent and the article implied that someone else owned the property someone did own it. I'm not really sure how I feel about the police being granted authority without at least a judicial review to plant cameras on say, my property even If I did own several acres. The whole no right to privacy thing makes sense in dealing with public land and plain view clauses but sticking a camera on private property, owned or not by the suspects, seems a little overstep of police authority, which is probably why this will be appealed again.
 
2012-10-31 06:37:48 AM

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 figure I'd just smear the lens with used toilet paper.
 
2012-10-31 06:44:05 AM

randomjsa: The officers installed the cameras in an open field

You have no expectation of privacy. Sorry, the police and the judge are right this time.


Of course RandomWhargarble is all for a police state.
 
2012-10-31 06:48:07 AM
Yeah, they can put cameras in your bathroom.

If your bathroom is in the middle of an open field with no walls or ceiling...
 
2012-10-31 06:58:53 AM
Although I consider myself a 4th amendment advocate, I read the article and agree with the ruling since it is not as invasive as subby states, is based on precedent considering curtilage, and reinforces the fact that privacy simply cannot be expected in an open field.

On the other hand, the war on drugs seems like such a waste to include weed.
 
2012-10-31 07:13:23 AM

muck1969: Although I consider myself a 4th amendment advocate, I read the article and agree with the ruling since it is not as invasive as subby states, is based on precedent considering curtilage, and reinforces the fact that privacy simply cannot be expected in an open field.

On the other hand, the war on drugs seems like such a waste to include weed.


Wellll... as long as it's only a LITTLE invasive...
 
2012-10-31 07:16:20 AM
Yet another civil liberty compromised by the war on unpatentable drugs. Like it's not already easy enough to bust pot growers...
 
2012-10-31 07:17:11 AM

fluffy2097: Yeah, they can put cameras in your bathroom.

If your bathroom is in the middle of an open field with no walls or ceiling...


It is Wisconsin.
 
2012-10-31 07:22:57 AM

ModernLuddite: I think it makes perfect sense.

The cops found weed out in a field, with no way to identify who owned or used the land. Had they just hung out and waiting for someone to show up and water the plants, that would have been okay. Putting the camera up was ruled to be okay.

......Putting the camera up should not have been okay, but what the hell? The camera was pointed at an illegal marijuana crop, not looking inside their bedroom window.


They should have gotten a search warrant first. If they found physical evidence of a crime being committed, then a judge should look at that first before installing surveillance equipment. Otherwise a cop would go, "We installed this camera in your back yard because we're not sure if you own this house. No, of course we didn't check first, but that's not the point."
 
2012-10-31 07:25:52 AM
Well, you can thank President Bush and the "Patriot Act" for this one. You don't have any privacy rights any more - period.
 
2012-10-31 07:28:34 AM

Cold_Sassy: Well, you can thank President Bush and the "Patriot Act" for this one. You don't have any privacy rights any more - period.


Wow blame Bush really?

How about.........No this has been coming for a long time it's just been accelerated since the Patriot act.

also it's a field not a residence.

//Farking privacy has been removed "for our safety"

Ben was right.
 
2012-10-31 07:35:00 AM
I have a couple of friends who used to do somewhat low-budget special effects. I'm pretty sure if I found a camera in my house, I'd call one of them to make me a butcherable baby and put on a show.

Maybe even make it a weekly series.
 
2012-10-31 07:36:02 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.


And you know damn well the USSC is going to uphold this. Because War on Civil LibertiesDrugs.
 
2012-10-31 07:39:04 AM

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


Not all republicans are of a "lets make a police state" mindset. 99% of conservative Republicans are not like that, the problem is, there isn't a good alternative party.
 
2012-10-31 07:44:56 AM
In arguments over warrantless GPS surveillance, for example, the government has insisted that installing a tracking device on a suspect's car is no different than having an officer manually follow the car, an activity that has always been permitted by the Fourth Amendment.

Except that it is totaly different. In one situation an officer is driving on the same public roads as I am. In another, they are physically attaching their private property to my private property. You might as well say it's no different from an officer being allowed to sit in your back seat or chain his car to yours so he concentrate on tracking you instead of driving.
 
2012-10-31 07:45:40 AM
U.S.S.A! U.S.S.A!
 
2012-10-31 07:48:32 AM
This is a classic curtilage argument. It wasn't considered part of the protected area of the home. This doesn't mean that police can put cameras anywhere on your property in all cases, only on areas that don't fall under the umbrella of the 4th amendment. Nothing too surprising in light of 4th Amendment cases. See Dunn, Davis, Riley, etc.

It's weird law in general if you ask me, but this case is not a clear erosion of the 4th Amendment IMHO given the history of cases. More so, following in line with precedent.
 
2012-10-31 07:52:29 AM

Studson: This is a classic curtilage argument. It wasn't considered part of the protected area of the home. This doesn't mean that police can put cameras anywhere on your property in all cases, only on areas that don't fall under the umbrella of the 4th amendment. Nothing too surprising in light of 4th Amendment cases. See Dunn, Davis, Riley, etc.

It's weird law in general if you ask me, but this case is not a clear erosion of the 4th Amendment IMHO given the history of cases. More so, following in line with precedent.


We are TRYING to have a circlejerk of "THEYS TAKINS OUR FREEDAMS!" here.

We don't need nor want your intelligent commentary that actually reflects the reality of the situation.
 
2012-10-31 07:55:10 AM

Deep Contact: Don't forget to accidentally make the camera watching the camera fall into a muddy puddle.


like i said i have no clue it was the cops that placed it if it does not have a way to identify the owner. heck if they don't label it police property and its on MY property i can smash it in truth. If it is labeled i would be on the phone telling them to remove it from my property and without warrant to place it they have no choice but to remove it. either way don't have a large enough property for this situation to happen where they would not need a warrant. also going by the article the judgment i proper since in the middle of a field it is true that there should be no notion of actions being private. Do i also think this is a waste of money to go after some potheads? yes. how about they use this money to go after meth labs, i have yet to hear of a pot farm blowing up and injuring people due to just growing
 
2012-10-31 08:07:26 AM

fluffy2097: We are TRYING to have a circlejerk of "THEYS TAKINS OUR FREEDAMS!" here.

We don't need nor want your intelligent commentary that actually reflects the reality of the situation.


This case runs against ever moral fabric of the Constitution and the Bible, the two very texts our country was founded upon. I will not sit here idly by and watch the erosion of our inalienable rights! Under a Republican administration, this case would have been tossed by the prosecutor long before first appearance.

Wake up sheeple!
 
2012-10-31 08:14:14 AM

Studson: This case runs against ever moral fabric of the Constitution and the Bible, the two very texts our country was founded upon.


Good job. 50% correct.
 
2012-10-31 08:18:07 AM

phrawgh: Studson: This case runs against ever moral fabric of the Constitution and the Bible, the two very texts our country was founded upon.

Good job. 50% correct.


LOL

Constitution!=Bible and this particular issue is definitely one of the points where they do not converge.

//and Lo Jesus said I won't peak in your bedroom to check that you are following all commandments. But Dad is Omnipresent so you better believe you are being watched.

///seriously people learn your rulebooks and powers.
 
2012-10-31 08:18:19 AM

phrawgh: Good job. 50% correct.


Me thinks you did not read well enough . . .
 
2012-10-31 08:28:32 AM

Raharu: Of course RandomWhargarble is all for a police state.


You're a moron. You have no expectation of privacy in an open field which is why the police can put cameras there. It's also why they could stand there and do the same damn thing as the cameras.
 
2012-10-31 08:30:24 AM

Vodka Zombie: I have a couple of friends who used to do somewhat low-budget special effects. I'm pretty sure if I found a camera in my house, I'd call one of them to make me a butcherable baby and put on a show.

Maybe even make it a weekly series.



This idea has real potential.
 
2012-10-31 08:36:29 AM

Nothing new -- the headline is misleading. The private property did NOT belong to those who were surveiled.


Judge William Griesbach rejected the request. Instead, he approved the ruling of a magistrate judge that the Fourth Amendment only protected the home and land directly outside of it (known as "curtilage"), not open fields far from any residence.


and further down


The government also briefly argues that there was no Fourth Amendment search because neither Mendoza nor Magana owned or leased the Property.


Thus, if you're growing pot illegally on someone else's land, check for cameras.
 
2012-10-31 08:39:52 AM
Before you lament the rise of the police state, won't you stop to ponder the considerable tangible benefits of living in a police state?
 
2012-10-31 08:46:50 AM
As one of the commenters in TFA sums it up: Trespass should equal Unreasonable Search. Period.
The Open Fields doctrine is garbage, and should be overturned. Hopefully this case will proved an avenue for that.

Set up an unwarranted camera outside my fence? Fine.
Inside my fence? Now it's my camera. Get your bacon-scented ass off my property.
 
2012-10-31 08:53:37 AM

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


Brilliant!
I have a camera in my van, come hang your panties on it.
 
2012-10-31 09:00:36 AM

bk3k: [d27fcql9yjk2c0.cloudfront.net image 460x274]


where the fark are those located?
 
2012-10-31 09:02:09 AM

ModernLuddite: I think it makes perfect sense.
The cops found weed out in a field, with no way to identify who owned or used the land. Had they just hung out and waiting for someone to show up and water the plants, that would have been okay. Putting the camera up was ruled to be okay.
......Putting the camera up should not have been okay, but what the hell? The camera was pointed at an illegal marijuana crop, not looking inside their bedroom window.


Because obtaining a warrant (or permission from whoever DID own/lease the land) is impossible, suddenly?
 
2012-10-31 09:03:47 AM

opiumpoopy: 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.


Aerial surveys and spy satellites are observing from outside the property boundary, which is legal, similar to a police being stood on the edge of your property. A camera permanently fixed inside the property boundary is like a police always being stood on your property, which is, as I am sure you will see, totally different.

Surely there is some cheap device that will disrupt a camera and its ability to send pictures (strobe light set to 200 Hz shining into the lens and/or open gap spark radio frequency signal generator). Neither of which mean you have to touch the camera to disable it.

Let them keep their rights, operate within yours and still say fark you, you will not get your information...

/of course this all relies on seeing the camera in the first place.
 
2012-10-31 09:04:23 AM

randomjsa: You're a moron. You have no expectation of privacy in an open field which is why the police can put cameras there. It's also why they could stand there and do the same damn thing as the cameras.


You're saying that police can trespass on private property any time they like as part of an unwarranted surveillance? And you're calling someone else a moron?
 
2012-10-31 09:06:50 AM

sodomizer: Nothing new -- the headline is misleading. The private property did NOT belong to those who were surveiled.


Judge William Griesbach rejected the request. Instead, he approved the ruling of a magistrate judge that the Fourth Amendment only protected the home and land directly outside of it (known as "curtilage"), not open fields far from any residence.


and further down


The government also briefly argues that there was no Fourth Amendment search because neither Mendoza nor Magana owned or leased the Property.


Thus, if you're growing pot illegally on someone else's land, check for cameras.


I didn't see it in TFA, but I wonder if the actual land OWNER gave the police permission to put up the cameras. If so, I see nothing wrong here.
 
2012-10-31 09:06:54 AM

randomjsa: Raharu: Of course RandomWhargarble is all for a police state.

You're a moron. You have no expectation of privacy in an open field which is why the police can put cameras there. It's also why they could stand there and do the same damn thing as the cameras.


Remember, it's not trespassing when it's cops ignoring the no trespassing signs. I wish I was kidding.
 
2012-10-31 09:13:47 AM

nmrsnr: 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.


When you think about it, this is rational. It allows you to use your home for private activities, but anything on a larger scale is presumed to affect society at large and is able to be monitored. It also takes into account the nature of law enforcement having access to airplanes (flying machines, they're new, you probably haven't heard of them, he said, adjusting his iPod).
 
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