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
 
2012-10-31 01:13:16 PM

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: 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.


BUT the WHOLE point of that challenge is to prevent us from living in a police state.
Without those challenges, the police would have no checks.

Beating a confession out of you? Whoops, our bad your honor, but she is a bad guy.
Getting everyone's charge and banking information? Whoops, our bad your honor, but those 3000 people cheated on their taxes and had undeclared income.

While I am all in favor of catching and punishing law breakers ...
 
2012-10-31 01:25:25 PM
Ok although it has been said in thread multiple times, in chunks, here is why there was no 4th violation:

1) The parties lacked standing to object because they lacked ownership/leasehold of the property violated

2) Under precedent going back almost 100 years, fields aren't protected by the 4th amendment. First it was because fields aren't persons, houses, papers, or effects, i.e. what the 4th amendment actually covers. More recently, they are not protected under Katz because you lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in any fields other than the curtilage. We may argue that this is bad, but it has been standing law since 1924, and even the most judicially liberal court in American history didn't do away with it.

Because it is not within the ambit of the 4th amendment, they don't need a warrant at all. It is not a search under the 4th amendment, even though it may be a search as per common sense. Con Law rule #2, never assume common sense and constitutional law are the same thing.

3) The police may be guilty of trespassing if they enter your fields without permission. You get to sue them, likely under a state tort theory and possibly 1983. What you do not get to do is exclude the evidence they found. Thus, it is irrelevant to the 4th amendment if they were "trespassing" - and it is cold comfort to sue a cop in an attempt to win damages when you are in jail for 30 years, especially because convicts rarely win such lawsuits against police.

hooray war on drugs!
 
2012-10-31 01:27:29 PM
Find the camera, cover it up in a non-damaging way. Property doesn't get damaged, and the camera's usefulness is nullified.

Or if the law permits it, get rid of the cameras.
 
2012-10-31 01:29:36 PM
Hello Patriotic land owner(who it turns out is not the pot growers)... Please feel free to file charges against the police for trespassing on your land to install cameras.

/Message end.....
//Message continue.... there was tagger in BC southern Okanagan where the cops put 2 wildlife cameras on his property(next to driveway) in his trees. He found them since the cops did not turn off the flash and he also found lots of gruesome undeleted images on the flash card from other crimes. He gave the camera to his lawyer for safekeeping and LULZ were had by everyone except the cops. Cops knew they broke the law in order to monitor the taggers coming and goings.
 
2012-10-31 01:30:29 PM
Seriously how is even happening the evidence obtained thanks to that camera should have been tossed due to failure to get the proper warrant first.

Seriously I agree this could very well go to the SCOTUS and if so it should be interesting to see how they rule.
 
2012-10-31 01:32:36 PM
The God of Pot must be proud.
All the lies, racism, falsehoods, fearmongering, criminalization, expense, butthurt, destroyed persons and families over a plant that has been used by humanity for all of recorded history.
Hey, Drug Czar, look at what you have done.
Sanctioned hypocritical, illegal activity by your own forces in order to finance your "Black Secret Chit" and line the pockets of amoral profiteering criminals.
Turned your self/position into the worst sort of whore for, fer crying out loud, allegience to a corrupt sociopathic administration run by amoral profiteering criminals.
Whored out an entire generation of "Law Enforcement Officers" and put them in an untenable and unsustainable position of "Authority Theatre and Disrespect" vs. The People. Policing Full Retard Stupid Laws undermines the entire fabric of society.
Incarcerated a signifigant percentage of the population for association with a harmless substance you pretend is "Great Evil" just because some prick said so when all, ALL, EVERY BIT OF, the ENTIRE BASE OF ACCUMULATED scientific study indicates otherwise.

Only in Amerika.
/No offence to "real", or is it "actual" whores(Memorex), you actually provide most useful service
 
2012-10-31 01:34:09 PM

grimlock1972: Seriously how is even happening the evidence obtained thanks to that camera should have been tossed due to failure to get the proper warrant first.

Seriously I agree this could very well go to the SCOTUS and if so it should be interesting to see how they rule.


I don't expect them to rule until the next generation of technology makes "camera" undefined.
 
2012-10-31 01:44:05 PM

BullBearMS: GAT_00: 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.

As opposed to our Constitutional Scholar in Chief who promised an end to the Bush lawlessness? We know how that turned out.

[dl.dropbox.com image 800x192]

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to halt a legal challenge weighing the constitutionality of a once-secret warrantless surveillance program targeting Americans' communications

and

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to allow the government, without a court warrant, to affix GPS devices on suspects' vehicles to track their every move.

and

The Obama administration is urging Congress not to adopt legislation that would impose constitutional safeguards on Americans' e-mail stored in the cloud.

and

The Obama administration told a federal court Tuesday that the public has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in cellphone location data, and hence the authorities may obtain documents detailing a person's movements from wireless carriers without a probable-cause warrant.

and

Certain sections of the Patriot Act, which originally passed Congress a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks with near-unanimous support, have long been criticized by civil libertarians in both political parties.

But the Obama administration and its allies on Capitol Hill have been eager to renew about-to-expire provisions that expanded domestic intelligence collection and wiretapping powers. As the AP put it, "The idea [of the deal] is to pass the extension with as little debate as possible to avoid a protracted and familiar argument over the expanded power the law gives to the government."

and

For more than two years, a handful of Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee have warned that the governmen ...


www.swifteconomics.com
 
2012-10-31 02:00:59 PM

GAT_00: 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.


Just like they did in the Eminent Domain case?

Wait,what?

Now that I've paid the toll & fed the troll, my question is if I shoot the armed tresspassers, why (and yes, I know I would) would I get in trouble, but if I was walking on my land, armed for self defense as it IS my land, these tresspassers could murder me and have a medal pinned on their chest.
 
2012-10-31 02:18:03 PM

garandman1a: GAT_00: 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.

Just like they did in the Eminent Domain case?

Wait,what?

Now that I've paid the toll & fed the troll, my question is if I shoot the armed tresspassers, why (and yes, I know I would) would I get in trouble, but if I was walking on my land, armed for self defense as it IS my land, these tresspassers could murder me and have a medal pinned on their chest.


What state are you in and what is the castle doctrine? Mine... I would be strung up by my thumbs for shooting a home invader that has a knife to my wifes throut.
 
2012-10-31 02:28:22 PM

ZogDog: 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


I love these threads where all the "experts" come out of the woodworks...like this guy, who felt compelled to give his credentials as "someone working on being in the process of receiving his bachelors degree in a somewhat possibly similar area".

I can tell you dude, that in my area - for which I obtained the highest post-graduate degree - that most of my learning came in the 20 years working in my field post education. If you get that far, you'll be EMBARRASSED at your own posts...like this one!
 
2012-10-31 02:42:12 PM

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...


The middle of an open field is my favorite place to take a piss
 
2012-10-31 03:40:24 PM
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You cannot reach a proper conclusion when you consider the wrong question.

The Fourth Amendment isn't about what specific sorts of property should be protected. Nor is it about various judge's fanciful notions regarding your and my "expectations."

The Fourth Amendment is about warrants.

The Fourteenth Amendment is a pretty clear statement that agents of the government must obtain warrants to search and seize because the people have a right to be secure in their persons and property.

Naturally, circumstances may compel law enforcement to search or seize without a warrant because there was no opportunity to obtain one.

In these narrow situations, and ONLY in these situations, should the "reasonableness" of the search and seizure be contemplated. What is "reasonable" under a given set of circumstances should be a question for a jury to decide because "reasonableness" simply cannot be meaningfully defined in the objective or abstract. 

In this case, law enforcement officers had probable cause to suspect marijuana was being illegally cultivated on this site. Had they bothered to seek one, a search warrant almost certainly would have issued. However, law enforcement officials simply chose not to bother. Indeed, they believed a "No Trespassing" couldn't be reasonably interpreted to indicate the landowner's assertion of an expectation of privacy on that property, and they believed that installing a surveillance camera on that property didn't constitute a search of that property.

Whether the state's violations of the people's rights in this particular situation was "reasonable" should be decided by a jury.
 
2012-10-31 04:04:27 PM
DaCaptain 19
Actually buddy not to knock your parade or anything but yes, I'm currently in the process of getting my bachelors degree, however I've worked in the field since I got out of the Marine Corps both as a paralegal assistant and in rehabilitative corrections, I was simply giving a little bit of background because a majority of the time people tend to respect education over experince but if you want to knock me go right on ahead


/hears a golf clap for you.
 
2012-10-31 04:17:52 PM

MythDragon: 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.


There's also this:
- Is it illegal to follow a police car?
- Is it illegal to attach a GPS tracking device to a police car without their knowledge?
- Is it illegal to publish the data from said devices?

Whatever happened to that whole DUI Checkpoint App thing? I know congress was trying to muck around with it.
 
2012-10-31 04:19:28 PM

ltdanman44: bk3k: [d27fcql9yjk2c0.cloudfront.net image 460x274]

where the fark are those located?


Somewhere where walls look suspiciously like video game textures?
 
2012-10-31 04:28:51 PM

tekmo: Whether the state's violations of the people's rights in this particular situation was "reasonable" should be decided by a jury.


I would note that you probably don't want this to become a question of fact, as i really don't see a lot of juries making what you would consider to be a good call:

Oh the police searched that mean looking drug dealer - sounds reasonable!

Oh the police searched that nice looking college girl - unreasonable!

/Then again perhaps i am just jaded as to juries
 
2012-10-31 04:37:44 PM
step one find hidden cam step two set up tv infront of cam step three proceedd to show hours apon hours of gay furry porn to cam. step four proceed to the darker corners of internet to the 700 pound simo sex. step 5 listen to the agonizing crys of big brother.

what has been seen cannot be unseen blackholes.
 
2012-10-31 05:47:27 PM

snocone: grimlock1972: Seriously how is even happening the evidence obtained thanks to that camera should have been tossed due to failure to get the proper warrant first.

Seriously I agree this could very well go to the SCOTUS and if so it should be interesting to see how they rule.

I don't expect them to rule until the next generation of technology makes "camera" undefined.


Well, since, according to the Supreme Court, the "conveyance of the day" is still the horse and buggy, I don't think you have to worry about them getting around to learning about camera technology anytime soon. They don't even know about cars yet.
 
2012-10-31 07:43:55 PM

Teiritzamna: ...i really don't see a lot of juries making what you would consider to be a good call: Oh the police searched that mean looking drug dealer - sounds reasonable! Oh the police searched that nice looking college girl - unreasonable!


Frankly, I'd prefer the vicissitudes of juries to judges who constantly side with police. Particularly where that's...

[puts on sunglasses]

...unwarranted.

YEEEEAAAAAAAAAAGGGHHHHHH1!!!!
 
2012-10-31 08:23:28 PM

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.


You mean within the law -because it certainly isnt right.
 
2012-10-31 09:19:24 PM

mr smart the great: step one find hidden cam step two set up tv infront of cam step three proceedd to show hours apon hours of gay furry porn to cam. step four proceed to the darker corners of internet to the 700 pound simo sex. step 5 listen to the agonizing crys of big brother.

what has been seen cannot be unseen blackholes.


I'm too tired to engage in the legal discussion, but I like some of the suggestions we've had here. I move to adjourn this thread to more methods of screwing with what the camera sees.
 
2012-10-31 10:37:10 PM

Saiga410: garandman1a: GAT_00: 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.

Just like they did in the Eminent Domain case?

Wait,what?

Now that I've paid the toll & fed the troll, my question is if I shoot the armed tresspassers, why (and yes, I know I would) would I get in trouble, but if I was walking on my land, armed for self defense as it IS my land, these tresspassers could murder me and have a medal pinned on their chest.

What state are you in and what is the castle doctrine? Mine... I would be strung up by my thumbs for shooting a home invader that has a knife to my wifes throut.


I live in Illinois as well and you're completely wrong.

If the entry is forceful or a person thinks a felony is about to be committed, you can kill the person and be immune from civil lawsuits. The threshold for a non-violent felony (aka burglary) is $500, so unless you're an ascetic, then you can pretty easily get away with shooting an intruder in your house unless the DA is a complete cock. However your DA wouldn't cover the whole state
 
2012-11-01 12:30:44 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.


I contest that they're eating away at my livelihood since they're getting that footage without paying the monthly subscription
 
2012-11-01 02:57:12 AM

Omahawg: pfft. they watch me fondle grapefruit now in the grocery store for my own safety

*waves at big brother*


i like to hold similar size grapefruit in front of my chest, hefting them for weight from underneath as i ask random shoppers passing by, "what do ya think, huh? nice? nice, or what, huh?". because i don't know much about picking produce but i want the best for my family.


--- people need to stop hoarding seeds and just plant everywhere. when the whole country turns into a wild farm we'll see who has the laff laff.
 
2012-11-01 04:00:35 AM

namatad: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: 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.

BUT the WHOLE point of that challenge is to prevent us from living in a police state.
Without those challenges, the police would have no checks.

Beating a confession out of you? Whoops, our bad your honor, but she is a bad guy.
Getting everyone's charge and banking information? Whoops, our bad your honor, but those 3000 people cheated on their taxes and had undeclared income.

While I am all in favor of catching and punishing law breakers ...


Oh yeah, those challenges certainly have a good effect, I just don't like why they're made to start with.
 
2012-11-01 03:49:05 PM

Kittypie070: 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.


Two girls one cup?
 
2012-11-01 05:04:01 PM

tekmo: Teiritzamna: ...i really don't see a lot of juries making what you would consider to be a good call: Oh the police searched that mean looking drug dealer - sounds reasonable! Oh the police searched that nice looking college girl - unreasonable!

Frankly, I'd prefer the vicissitudes of juries to judges who constantly side with police. Particularly where that's...

[puts on sunglasses]

...unwarranted.

YEEEEAAAAAAAAAAGGGHHHHHH1!!!!


I disagree, yet must tip my hat to you sir. Well played.
 
Displayed 28 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