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.

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.

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?