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

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.

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.

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.

Yet another civil liberty compromised by the war on unpatentable drugs. Like it's not already easy enough to bust pot growers...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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 :)

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!!"

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.

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.

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.

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.