Public Savant: You know, I'd rather go to Russia than I'd go to the states these days.
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-bluei'd patch into the video feed and make the cops watch hours and hours of spongebob squarepants.
The Southern Dandy: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 574x357]
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
randomjsa: The officers installed the cameras in an open fieldYou have no expectation of privacy. Sorry, the police and the judge are right this time.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
GAT_00: Kelo was an atrocity and Republicans will uphold any police state regulations that come before the court.
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.
Deep Contact: Don't forget to accidentally make the camera watching the camera fall into a muddy puddle.
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.
Studson: This case runs against ever moral fabric of the Constitution and the Bible, the two very texts our country was founded upon.
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.
phrawgh: Good job. 50% correct.
Raharu: Of course RandomWhargarble is all for a police state.
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.
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.
The government also briefly argues that there was no Fourth Amendment search because neither Mendoza nor Magana owned or leased the Property.
bk3k: [d27fcql9yjk2c0.cloudfront.net image 460x274]
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.
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.
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 downThe 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.
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.
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.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Feb 24 2017 01:42:31
Runtime: 0.453 sec (452 ms)