Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

17668 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Oct 2012 at 5:09 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
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
 
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).
 
2012-10-31 09:16:39 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.


Except that at some point it becomes different. A camera is an unattended 24/7 monitoring device, much like a GPS tracker on a vehicle, which the Supreme Court has determined that if the device is used long term (like, for a month), it does indeed require a warrant. Short term use doesn't, and they didn't set a bright line on when it is required, but I would expect that because the issues are very similar, setting a camera on *PRIVATE* property for long term will require a warrant, even if it is outside the curtilage. Otherwise you'll have two pretty much identical situations (long term public monitoring in open areas), one of which requires a warrant, and one of which doesn't.

/Not that logic need dictate what the Supreme Court thinks, of course.
 
2012-10-31 09:18:59 AM  

Z-clipped: 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?


You're the moron for believing otherwise. We may not *LIKE* it, but currently, that is the law.
 
2012-10-31 09:19:59 AM  

sodomizer: 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).


Conduct your illicit activities underground. It shields you from all sorts of monitoring.
 
2012-10-31 09:20:16 AM  

sodomizer: 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).


The presumtion is falacy, see meth labs.
 
2012-10-31 09:24:30 AM  

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


While this headline is clearly overblown, I'm still beginning to think about whether I really want to go back to the US. Japan's looking more and more attractive, radioactive ocean and all.

Maybe I'll just stick around and wait for Godzilla to show up.
 
2012-10-31 09:26:25 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.


Video feedback loop
 
2012-10-31 09:27:49 AM  

dittybopper: You're the moron for believing otherwise. We may not *LIKE* it, but currently, that is the law.


Can I get a citation? Because the case law I'm reading states otherwise.
 
2012-10-31 09:27:54 AM  

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

While this headline is clearly overblown, I'm still beginning to think about whether I really want to go back to the US. Japan's looking more and more attractive, radioactive ocean and all.

Maybe I'll just stick around and wait for Godzilla to show up.


GoGo Godzilla. That is all
 
2012-10-31 09:34:53 AM  

dittybopper: You're the moron for believing otherwise. We may not *LIKE* it, but currently, that is the law.


I'm aware that Oliver denies expectation of privacy in "open fields", but that doesn't mean that an officer can literally set up camp on private property without a warrant. Especially with fences and signage present. Criminal trespass is still criminal trespass. If he has no official business, I can chase him out of my cornfield, same as anybody.
 
2012-10-31 09:59:39 AM  

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.


You really don't understand the USSC at all I take it. In general those "right wing" members have more respect for the 4th than the left wing justices, take the following ruling:

http://wjlta.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/supreme-court-upholds-fourth-am e ndment-rights-in-gps-tracking-case/

Scalia and Alito both upheld 4th amendment protections in the GPS tracking case.

It would be nice if just one time you weren't blindly partisan and actually had some facts on your side instead of blind partisan conjecture.
 
2012-10-31 10:01:59 AM  
Old news. The time to complain about the open fields doctrine was a few decades ago.

If you don't like it, move to Texas. Thanks to a case way back from the 1920's if the police (or one of their non-police agents) trespasses at any point while gathering evidence, then it is suppressed. This has killed the open fields doctrine in this state. Also no "inevitable discovery" doctrine, so that little ruse is out too.
 
2012-10-31 10:02:00 AM  

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.


Except he is blatantly wrong on his conjecture. United States V Jones as cited by me and others above.
 
2012-10-31 10:03:17 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.


Do liberals just blindly post conjecture, even when completely wrong? THERE WAS A 4TH AMENDMENT CASE JUST THIS YEAR. god people, take 5 seconds to look up what the USSC is doing. This makes you look blindly partisan.
 
2012-10-31 10:06:37 AM  

MyRandomName: 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.

You really don't understand the USSC at all I take it. In general those "right wing" members have more respect for the 4th than the left wing justices, take the following ruling:

http://wjlta.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/supreme-court-upholds-fourth-am e ndment-rights-in-gps-tracking-case/

Scalia and Alito both upheld 4th amendment protections in the GPS tracking case.



Sort of. I seem to recall that they relied not on Kelo but on the older (and pretty much discarded up to that point) trespass doctrine. That is that the police conduct was not allowed not because it was an intrusion but because they encumbered someone else's property. It was a really weird way to get there and doesn't at all ensure 4th Amend. protection.
 
2012-10-31 10:11:39 AM  

corn-bread: MyRandomName: 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.

You really don't understand the USSC at all I take it. In general those "right wing" members have more respect for the 4th than the left wing justices, take the following ruling:

http://wjlta.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/supreme-court-upholds-fourth-am e ndment-rights-in-gps-tracking-case/

Scalia and Alito both upheld 4th amendment protections in the GPS tracking case.


Sort of. I seem to recall that they relied not on Kelo but on the older (and pretty much discarded up to that point) trespass doctrine. That is that the police conduct was not allowed not because it was an intrusion but because they encumbered someone else's property. It was a really weird way to get there and doesn't at all ensure 4th Amend. protection.


Jones V United States dealt with two primary facts in regards to 4th amendment. First was following a suspect is not a violation, but GPS tracking is due to the aggregation of information. The aggregation of information the GPS tracker allows requires a warrant. The second was the planting of the GPS tracker was trespass onto property, even though visual site if followed was not.

Aside from that, Alito and Scalia have been 2 of the justices protecting 4th amendment protections. GAT's undue speculation was just completely wrong.

This case will not fall under Jones due to the cameras not being an intrusion into tracking of a suspect, but merely a lot. It doesn't fall under aggregation of information as it is only monitoring a single locale. Trespass would only be a violation of the property owner's rights, if the suspects were not leasing/renting they would have no cause for 4th amendment protections.

I was merely pointing out how wrong GAT is due to his blind partisanship.
 
2012-10-31 10:14:40 AM  
Cameras watching pot fields? I wonder how long until the absurd reductionists get here to bemoan our loss of freedoms.
 
2012-10-31 10:19:53 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. True punishment.


Teletubbies?
 
2012-10-31 10:24:52 AM  

MyRandomName: Scalia and Alito both upheld 4th amendment protections in the GPS tracking case.


I think his point was that Kyllo was a bit of a 4th Amendment outlier for the conservatives on the court. See Florence, and Kentucky vs. King, for example. The Jones majority opinion written by Scalia was also not much of a gem, considering the opportunity it squandered.
 
2012-10-31 10:24:59 AM  

MyRandomName: 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.

Do liberals just blindly post conjecture, even when completely wrong? THERE WAS A 4TH AMENDMENT CASE JUST THIS YEAR. god people, take 5 seconds to look up what the USSC is doing. This makes you look blindly partisan.


LOL! You actually do think the Scalia is a decent and impartial human being, don't you. That's so CUTE!
 
2012-10-31 10:26:23 AM  
While an interesting case, I can see where it comes to being in an expected private location(my house), or an expected public location(not in my house). I define the second more broadly than the first because I don't expect to be captured on film or tape in my house (without my permission). When I'm not in my house, I could see random or expected pictures, film, aircraft recording devices, or people listening in on my conversations(even though they're pretty boring).

Just because I'm out in somebody's cornfield doesn't mean that I'm alone.

When I'm in my room rubbing one off, I'm alone.
 
2012-10-31 10:28:48 AM  
Ends do not justify the means.

A lot of people in here seem to forget that.
 
2012-10-31 10:29:38 AM  

TV's Vinnie: MyRandomName: 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.

Do liberals just blindly post conjecture, even when completely wrong? THERE WAS A 4TH AMENDMENT CASE JUST THIS YEAR. god people, take 5 seconds to look up what the USSC is doing. This makes you look blindly partisan.

LOL! You actually do think the Scalia is a decent and impartial human being, don't you. That's so CUTE!


No one is impartial. Everyone pushes their own agenda. Face it, impartial rulings are a thing of the past.
 
2012-10-31 10:33:59 AM  

yves0010: No one is impartial. Everyone pushes their own agenda. Face it, impartial rulings are a thing of the past.


True. Bush v. Gore certainly taught us that much. But still... Anton Scalia is an enormous asshole, by far surpassing the other current justices.
 
2012-10-31 10:35:02 AM  

yves0010: No one is impartial. Everyone pushes their own agenda. Face it, impartial rulings are a thing of the past.


Yeah, we're talking about Sc-FUGGING-lia here, who's grasp of Democracy is feeble at best. And Clarence Thomas? Hell, that guy would even overturn the 13th Amendment if he had the chance (and then sing a happy tune as he's lead off in chains to work the cotton fields at Massuh Limbaugh's plantation).
 
2012-10-31 10:37:52 AM  

MyRandomName:

Jones V United States dealt with two primary facts in regards to 4th amendment. First was following a suspect is not a violation, but GPS tracking is due to the aggregation of information. The aggregation of information the GPS tracker allows requires a warrant. The second was the planting of the GPS tracker was trespass onto property, even though visual site if followed was not.

Aside from that, Alito and Scalia have been 2 of the justices protecting 4th amendment protections.



Scalia in Hudson v. Michigan openly advocated doing away with the exclusionary rule. Doing so would give the 4th absolutely no teeth at all. Further he has supported roadblocks with drug dogs and allowing police to do outside the clothes drug searches.

Scalia is no friend of the 4th Amendment. He has been handing down pro-government decisions since the 1980's. See, but *now* after a couple decades that old bastard is changing his tune. I'm not prepared to call him "pro 4th amendment" after only four or five years of only slighly less crazy opinions.

In re Jones:
I understand what you were trying to refute. Your conclusions about who supported what are completely off the reservation, and that's part of the problem. The opinion that will have the most value for precedent has fark-all to do with aggregation. It is strictly about straight government trespass. It's a ridiculous ruling.

The one you're referring to, the one that truly talked about aggregation and why this was a search in the modern context, was where Breyer, Kagan, and Ginsberg went. Unfortunately it is a concurring opinion and carries very little force with it. It certainly isn't the law of the land.
 
2012-10-31 10:52:18 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.


Came here to say this.
 
2012-10-31 10:52:28 AM  
I suspect that if you find a security camera in your field and tear it down, the government is then going to charge you with "destruction of public property", too.
 
2012-10-31 10:52:30 AM  

Z-clipped: yves0010: No one is impartial. Everyone pushes their own agenda. Face it, impartial rulings are a thing of the past.

True. Bush v. Gore certainly taught us that much. But still... Anton Scalia is an enormous asshole, by far surpassing the other current justices.


Just more brazen, no more impartial than the others. So it's really just a wash.
 
2012-10-31 10:57:56 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.


Fourth, having actually read the article it's talking about an open field not a bathroom or any other part of a residence.

Of course, I'm just an IT guy not a lawyer.
 
2012-10-31 11:10:00 AM  

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Just more brazen, no more impartial than the others. So it's really just a wash.


I didn't say he was more impartial. I haven't studied enough law to make that argument, (though I do suspect it's probably demonstrably true)... No... as a citizen of the United States who has to live with the effects of his rulings and behavior I said he was a huge, monstrous, gaping asshole, and I stand by that opinion.
 
2012-10-31 11:17:41 AM  

serial_crusher: 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?


I'd imagine if you hit them with some form of restraining order at the same time, especially if you were female, you wouldn't find many people eager to contest it wasn't.
 
2012-10-31 11:25:49 AM  
We have no rights except those they choose to extend to us no matter what some 200+ year old piece of parchment might say. Big brother is watching.
 
2012-10-31 11:31:50 AM  
Does this mean that all the remote IED's and boobytraps doomsday bunker heroes have prepared can legally be disarmed or detonated by a bored precinct constable with some spare time?
 
2012-10-31 11:32:26 AM  
FTFA:
There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops, that occur in open fields."

Huh...I would have thought there would have been interest in not having a, you know, police state.

It is clear that nobody has any inalienable rights. Any "rights" you have are on loan from the government, and if it feels like revoking your rights, it will.

And the laaaaaaaand of the freeeeeeee
 
2012-10-31 11:37:52 AM  

muck1969: reinforces the fact that privacy simply cannot be expected in an open field.


I think it can be expected. If you own the property to such extent that the area in question is not viewable from public areas and the property is posted no tresspassing, I sure as shucks expect to see noone that is not in my good graces to be in a viewable angle without tresspass.
 
2012-10-31 11:44:07 AM  

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, gat is an idiot. One day we'll get an accurate census that provides us exactly how many personalities are bouncing around that mostly empty skull.
 
2012-10-31 11:47:54 AM  

SevenizGud: FTFA:
There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops, that occur in open fields."

Huh...I would have thought there would have been interest in not having a, you know, police state.

It is clear that nobody has any inalienable rights. Any "rights" you have are on loan from the government, and if it feels like revoking your rights, it will.

And the laaaaaaaand of the freeeeeeee


That's why the Declaration of Independence wasn't incorporated into the Constitution and the 'Bill of Rights' is a tacked-on list after the powers are enumerated. Even then, the states get first dibs on the left0vers.
 
2012-10-31 11:47:59 AM  
What if I hang twine all the way around my 200 acre farm, and every 10 feet post a sign that says "Curtilage starts here" instead of the no trespassing ones.
 
2012-10-31 11:51:42 AM  

nickerj1: What if I hang twine all the way around my 200 acre farm, and every 10 feet post a sign that says "Curtilage starts here" instead of the no trespassing ones.


You don't get to define Curtilage. It has a specific meaning under the law. Just saying it is Curtilage, doesn't make it so.
 
2012-10-31 11:53:39 AM  
I suspect that if you find a security camera in your field and tear it down, the government is then going to charge you with "destruction of public property", too.
I don't think so. Especially if there's no warrant. Most especially if it's considered trespassing.
If there is a police officer standing in your cornfield where you have posted "no trespassing" and "Private Property" signs and you run him over with your thresher, you can legitimately ask why the hell he was there at the inquest and there isn't much the government can say.

With a warrant, it's a different story. But you can still destroy the camera. Because who's to say it's government property? Unless there's a big sticker on the side of the camera that says "POLICE SURVEILLANCE" on it or something.

It's the practical upshot of technology and the law. If the police get latitude in using technology to encroach on the 4th amendment, people have technology that can defeat it.
You can say it's simply your policy to sweep your field with hidden camera detectors and destroy any cameras you find there. You're perfectly within your rights.
Unless they inform you it's a government camera beforehand. Which defeats their purpose.

Similarly, if some guy is standing out in your field and you challenge him, he would have to identify himself as a police officer or leave. If he's undercover, he doesn't get the benefit of violating the law because you can reasonably challenge someone trespassing on your property.
It's only when he says "ok, I'm a cop, with a warrant to surveil your field" that he can remain there.
 
2012-10-31 11:59:57 AM  
The article states in the update section that neither man owned or had leased the property; so, THIER 4th amendment rights weren't violated. The property owner's rights were. The suspects had no right to privacy on someone else's property.
 
2012-10-31 12:17:10 PM  

iheartscotch: The article states in the update section that neither man owned or had leased the property; so, THIER 4th amendment rights weren't violated. The property owner's rights were. The suspects had no right to privacy on someone else's property.


The court doesn't address that issue, actually as it wasn't a fact on the record.

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
 
2012-10-31 12:23:45 PM  
I had no idea that Yakov Smirnoff references were so common they needed to be filtered. In America, references filter you!
 
2012-10-31 12:25:42 PM  
In my mind, if the cops can see it from public space, it's fair game. So, if it's visible from the road, the air, space, someone else's property, etc - then tough, it's fair game.

On the other hand, if they have to enter your private property, trespass, break and enter, etc - then the cops/authorities are in the wrong...unless they have a warrant.
 
2012-10-31 12:27:40 PM  
Not surprising.
The Obama administration is actively fighting to take away your freedom.

Link
 
2012-10-31 12:44:32 PM  

Private_Citizen: In my mind, if the cops can see it from public space, it's fair game. So, if it's visible from the road, the air, space, someone else's property, etc - then tough, it's fair game.

On the other hand, if they have to enter your private property, trespass, break and enter, etc - then the cops/authorities are in the wrong...unless they have a warrant.


As far as I'm aware, you actually have many more protections than just those explicit ones. For example, there is precedent that the inside of a phone booth (I know, I know... what's a phone booth?) confers an expectation of privacy under the 4th. And recently, the SCOTUS ruled that even though infra-red is clearly "visible" from the street to anyone (through the walls of your house), the police still cannot surveil you using targeted infrared detectors without a warrant. The problem is, some of the justices are basing rulings on the actual implications of current tech, some on tenuous analogies between old and new surveillance methods, and some on 18th century statutes that couldn't possibly have taken current tech into account.

That said, I'll reiterate that the Open Field doctrine is crap and needs to go.
 
2012-10-31 12:58:32 PM  

Rincewind53: 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.


WAIT, WHAT???
But isnt that the same thing as this case, except different tech?
What is to stop police from putting cameras EVERYWHERE and watching everything?

This seems like a silly decision. If the USSC agrees, they will have to come up with a more broad ruling. They hate doing that.
 
2012-10-31 01:01:10 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.


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

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 government is secretly interpreting its surveillance powers under the Patriot Act in a way that would be alarming if the public - or even others in Congress - knew about it.  

Then, of course, there is the biggie.

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.
 
2012-10-31 01:01:52 PM  
Step 1: Rent a field and build a dwelling
Step 2: Grow weed
Step 3: Profit

Finally found step 2
 
2012-10-31 01:09:08 PM  

gadian: 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.


I doubt if the cops knew who owned the property before putting up the cameras.
 
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 178 of 178 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report