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)   Retired lawyer sues both Customs and Border Patrol and Texas Rangers after the two agencies cannot decide which has custody of Fuzzy Dunlop   ( arstechnica.com) divider line
    More: Cool, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Palacios, Ricardo Palacios, Ricardo Palacios Jr., CBP agents, Palacios ranch, border, local CBP agents  
•       •       •

6497 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Feb 2018 at 4:05 PM (21 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2018-02-22 03:01:40 PM  
It's kind of like reverse forfeiture. Usually the government takes your stuff and makes you spend years in court to get it back. This guy has the government's stuff and wants them to spend years in court to get it back.

If he can get the courts to think he tree is like a car, he'll win because the Supreme Court said police can't trespass on your car to plant a tracking device without a warrant.
 
2018-02-22 04:07:18 PM  
uproxx.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2018-02-22 04:08:32 PM  
s3.amazonaws.comView Full Size


Chuck ain't gonna appreciate that
 
2018-02-22 04:11:07 PM  

ZAZ: It's kind of like reverse forfeiture. Usually the government takes your stuff and makes you spend years in court to get it back. This guy has the government's stuff and wants them to spend years in court to get it back.

If he can get the courts to think he tree is like a car, he'll win because the Supreme Court said police can't trespass on your car to plant a tracking device without a warrant.


IANAL but I think it would be slightly different than that example.  A tracker on your car is there almost certainly to track you.  The CBP argument will be that the camera on the tree isn't there to keep tabs on the landowner, but on other people who might also trespass on the land.

A pretty weak argument, but that's what they would go with to counter your point.
 
2018-02-22 04:12:56 PM  

wxboy: IANAL


But enough about your sexual proclivities, what you think about the seized camera??
 
2018-02-22 04:13:26 PM  
Unlawful. This lawyer should win.

I'm so farking sick of the 4th getting raped.
 
2018-02-22 04:16:05 PM  
Typical lawyer, looking for the $$$, yeah, he cares about some camera, unless he likes streaking in the desert.
/ what is IANAL?
 
2018-02-22 04:16:59 PM  
About a decade ago we were hitting jumps with our bikes or in the woods in Show Low, AZ when one of the guys with us had an epileptic seizure.  Curiously enough an ambulance arrived about ten minutes later.  Someone clearly had a camera on us and was watching.  I always wondered if it were Border Patrol.
 
2018-02-22 04:17:29 PM  

wxboy: ZAZ: It's kind of like reverse forfeiture. Usually the government takes your stuff and makes you spend years in court to get it back. This guy has the government's stuff and wants them to spend years in court to get it back.

If he can get the courts to think he tree is like a car, he'll win because the Supreme Court said police can't trespass on your car to plant a tracking device without a warrant.

IANAL but I think it would be slightly different than that example.  A tracker on your car is there almost certainly to track you.  The CBP argument will be that the camera on the tree isn't there to keep tabs on the landowner, but on other people who might also trespass on the land.

A pretty weak argument, but that's what they would go with to counter your point.


A camera on your property placed there by the government is tracking your activity (or lack thereof.) They should have asked. Go RTFA for details.
 
2018-02-22 04:18:12 PM  
I, for one, welcome Ricardo Palacios standing up for his Constitutional rights peacefully with due cause.
 
2018-02-22 04:18:29 PM  
You: (pointing at the border guard), stay off the old man's property.

You:  (Pointing at the old man), give piggly wiggly his camera back.

Both of you (pointing at both).  Your dicks are both about the same size, end the pissing contest and go home.  Both of you sound like over important jackaerses....  Some judge will be rolling his/her eys at both parties involved on this case.
 
2018-02-22 04:18:38 PM  
Find an unauthorized camera on your property?  Do not take it down.  Put up a large No Trespassing sign in front of the camera, and put up your own camera nearby to catch anyone who might come and remove your sign.
 
2018-02-22 04:22:11 PM  

UsikFark: wxboy: ZAZ: It's kind of like reverse forfeiture. Usually the government takes your stuff and makes you spend years in court to get it back. This guy has the government's stuff and wants them to spend years in court to get it back.

If he can get the courts to think he tree is like a car, he'll win because the Supreme Court said police can't trespass on your car to plant a tracking device without a warrant.

IANAL but I think it would be slightly different than that example.  A tracker on your car is there almost certainly to track you.  The CBP argument will be that the camera on the tree isn't there to keep tabs on the landowner, but on other people who might also trespass on the land.

A pretty weak argument, but that's what they would go with to counter your point.

A camera on your property placed there by the government is tracking your activity (or lack thereof.) They should have asked. Go RTFA for details.


I think what he's saying is that the camera wasn't there to violate his rights, since they never tried to use anything it saw against him, only against other people.

It's like this: say you shoot someone and hide the gun in your neighbor's house.
If the police then search the neighbor's house without a warrant, find your gun, with your fingerprints, and it matches the bullets in the victim, can you then move to get the gun tossed out as evidence because they violated your right against unreasonable search and seizure?
 
2018-02-22 04:22:48 PM  

HumanSVD: Unlawful. This lawyer should win.

I'm so farking sick of the 4th getting raped.


This is what I hate about America.

Every political group is A-OK with punching (even more) holes in the bill of rights. Each faction has their pet amendment they'd like to see go away. No one seems truly interested in actually protecting all the rights that the bill of rights set forth as protected.
 
2018-02-22 04:23:47 PM  

Mock26: Find an unauthorized camera on your property?  Do not take it down.  Put up a large No Trespassing sign in front of the camera, and put up your own camera nearby to catch anyone who might come and remove your sign.


Find an unauthorized camera on your property?  Do not take it down.  Put a five gallon bucket up around it so that the camera is somewhere below the rim of the bucket.

Then enjoy your new outhouse.
 
2018-02-22 04:26:18 PM  

wxboy: ZAZ: It's kind of like reverse forfeiture. Usually the government takes your stuff and makes you spend years in court to get it back. This guy has the government's stuff and wants them to spend years in court to get it back.

If he can get the courts to think he tree is like a car, he'll win because the Supreme Court said police can't trespass on your car to plant a tracking device without a warrant.

IANAL but I think it would be slightly different than that example.  A tracker on your car is there almost certainly to track you.  The CBP argument will be that the camera on the tree isn't there to keep tabs on the landowner, but on other people who might also trespass on the land.

A pretty weak argument, but that's what they would go with to counter your point.


Likely they'll dismiss entirely, referencing Hester v. United States where it was decided that nearby fields are not protected by the fourth. It is the government's position that they can trespass on your undeveloped land all they want.
 
2018-02-22 04:26:33 PM  
Hmm.  Last name Palacios, with a son named Ricardo.  I suspect if he had a last name like Anderson and a son named Ricky he wouldn't have had these problems with CBP in the first place.
 
2018-02-22 04:27:00 PM  
Since the lawsuit, Casso said, his client has only had one interaction with CBP: agents went to his door and asked his permission to pursue a group of people they believed were on his ranch and were undocumented. He agreed.

Kinda think that if CBP asked permission to place the camera in the first place there wouldn't have been a problem.
 
2018-02-22 04:27:05 PM  

Karac: Mock26: Find an unauthorized camera on your property?  Do not take it down.  Put up a large No Trespassing sign in front of the camera, and put up your own camera nearby to catch anyone who might come and remove your sign.

Find an unauthorized camera on your property?  Do not take it down.  Put a five gallon bucket up around it so that the camera is somewhere below the rim of the bucket.

Then enjoy your new outhouse.

 
2018-02-22 04:27:24 PM  

doglover: HumanSVD: Unlawful. This lawyer should win.

I'm so farking sick of the 4th getting raped.

This is what I hate about America.

Every political group is A-OK with punching (even more) holes in the bill of rights. Each faction has their pet amendment they'd like to see go away. No one seems truly interested in actually protecting all the rights that the bill of rights set forth as protected.


We can't have any librulz having any liberty, or something like that.
 
2018-02-22 04:30:37 PM  
Even if he loses the case and gets arrested, I think he would still have an out:

Soon after, Palacios received phone calls from Customs and Border Protection officials and the Texas Rangers. Each agency claimed the camera as its own and demanded that it be returned.

He's got two different law enforcement agencies claiming they both own the same piece of equipment and want it returned.  Clearly at least one of them was wrong, if not outright lying.  How's he supposed to know which would be handing a piece of property back to it's rightful owner and which would be trafficking in stolen goods?
 
2018-02-22 04:31:55 PM  

weirdneighbour: Typical lawyer, looking for the $$$, yeah, he cares about some camera, unless he likes streaking in the desert.
/ what is IANAL?


The new iRobot anal probe
 
2018-02-22 04:32:23 PM  

Karac: UsikFark: wxboy: ZAZ: It's kind of like reverse forfeiture. Usually the government takes your stuff and makes you spend years in court to get it back. This guy has the government's stuff and wants them to spend years in court to get it back.

If he can get the courts to think he tree is like a car, he'll win because the Supreme Court said police can't trespass on your car to plant a tracking device without a warrant.

IANAL but I think it would be slightly different than that example.  A tracker on your car is there almost certainly to track you.  The CBP argument will be that the camera on the tree isn't there to keep tabs on the landowner, but on other people who might also trespass on the land.

A pretty weak argument, but that's what they would go with to counter your point.

A camera on your property placed there by the government is tracking your activity (or lack thereof.) They should have asked. Go RTFA for details.

I think what he's saying is that the camera wasn't there to violate his rights, since they never tried to use anything it saw against him, only against other people.

It's like this: say you shoot someone and hide the gun in your neighbor's house.
If the police then search the neighbor's house without a warrant, find your gun, with your fingerprints, and it matches the bullets in the victim, can you then move to get the gun tossed out as evidence because they violated your right against unreasonable search and seizure?


Nope. It will stick.
 
2018-02-22 04:33:01 PM  

Charlie Chingas: doglover: HumanSVD: Unlawful. This lawyer should win.

I'm so farking sick of the 4th getting raped.

This is what I hate about America.

Every political group is A-OK with punching (even more) holes in the bill of rights. Each faction has their pet amendment they'd like to see go away. No one seems truly interested in actually protecting all the rights that the bill of rights set forth as protected.

We can't have any librulz having any liberty, or something like that.


That's the conservatives' stance.

And the so called "liberals" don't want you to have guns or due process.

Someone on Facebook last week UNIRONICALLY said that we should repeal the 3rd because there's no soldiers in his house. I can't even...
 
2018-02-22 04:34:09 PM  
You get a gun
 
2018-02-22 04:35:17 PM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: Since the lawsuit, Casso said, his client has only had one interaction with CBP: agents went to his door and asked his permission to pursue a group of people they believed were on his ranch and were undocumented. He agreed.

Kinda think that if CBP asked permission to place the camera in the first place there wouldn't have been a problem.


That kinda seems to be what the issue is.
I'm curious how big his ranch is and if it's a working ranch or just a big piece of land.
 
2018-02-22 04:35:46 PM  
In other news, there's a few thousand nifty cameras hiding in the border region. Pop the top, change the sim card, and you got a game camera to go looking for Bigfoot.
 
2018-02-22 04:36:34 PM  

doglover: Charlie Chingas: doglover: HumanSVD: Unlawful. This lawyer should win.

I'm so farking sick of the 4th getting raped.

This is what I hate about America.

Every political group is A-OK with punching (even more) holes in the bill of rights. Each faction has their pet amendment they'd like to see go away. No one seems truly interested in actually protecting all the rights that the bill of rights set forth as protected.

We can't have any librulz having any liberty, or something like that.


That's the conservatives' stance.

And the so called "liberals" don't want you to have guns or due process.


?
 
2018-02-22 04:37:30 PM  

weirdneighbour: / what is IANAL?


What happens when you get curious.

/NTTIAWWT
 
2018-02-22 04:37:42 PM  

indifference_engine: Hmm.  Last name Palacios, with a son named Ricardo.  I suspect if he had a last name like Anderson and a son named Ricky he wouldn't have had these problems with CBP in the first place.


Well, he'd still have a lot of 'splainin' to do....
 
2018-02-22 04:38:05 PM  

weirdneighbour: Typical lawyer, looking for the $$$, yeah, he cares about some camera, unless he likes streaking in the desert.
/ what is IANAL?


It's safe to Google, but that's not important right now.

What you need is a lawyer.
 
2018-02-22 04:38:47 PM  

Charlie Chingas: doglover: HumanSVD: Unlawful. This lawyer should win.

I'm so farking sick of the 4th getting raped.

This is what I hate about America.

Every political group is A-OK with punching (even more) holes in the bill of rights. Each faction has their pet amendment they'd like to see go away. No one seems truly interested in actually protecting all the rights that the bill of rights set forth as protected.

We can't have any librulz having any liberty, or something like that.


You can't spell liberty without lib.  Checkmate, uhh... conny con?
 
2018-02-22 04:43:30 PM  

Unoriginal_Username: weirdneighbour: Typical lawyer, looking for the $$$, yeah, he cares about some camera, unless he likes streaking in the desert.
/ what is IANAL?

The new iRobot anal probe


Well, let's not forget that before the iPad (launched in 2010) there was... the iPad (aired in 2005).  Probably NSFW if your coworkers are prudish.

Ipad Madtv Skit HQ
Youtube M7ln00zr_Jc
 
2018-02-22 04:48:44 PM  

weirdneighbour: Typical lawyer, looking for the $$$, yeah, he cares about some camera, unless he likes streaking in the desert.
/ what is IANAL?


A secret FARK move, somewhat like a Dirty Sanchez but adapted for the lonely basement dwellers here.
 
2018-02-22 04:51:31 PM  
ok dicks, I looked it up, thought it was just a fark thing,  you guys is a bunch of smartie pantses
 
2018-02-22 04:51:34 PM  

Karac: UsikFark: wxboy: ZAZ: It's kind of like reverse forfeiture. Usually the government takes your stuff and makes you spend years in court to get it back. This guy has the government's stuff and wants them to spend years in court to get it back.

If he can get the courts to think he tree is like a car, he'll win because the Supreme Court said police can't trespass on your car to plant a tracking device without a warrant.

IANAL but I think it would be slightly different than that example.  A tracker on your car is there almost certainly to track you.  The CBP argument will be that the camera on the tree isn't there to keep tabs on the landowner, but on other people who might also trespass on the land.

A pretty weak argument, but that's what they would go with to counter your point.

A camera on your property placed there by the government is tracking your activity (or lack thereof.) They should have asked. Go RTFA for details.

I think what he's saying is that the camera wasn't there to violate his rights, since they never tried to use anything it saw against him, only against other people.

It's like this: say you shoot someone and hide the gun in your neighbor's house.
If the police then search the neighbor's house without a warrant, find your gun, with your fingerprints, and it matches the bullets in the victim, can you then move to get the gun tossed out as evidence because they violated your right against unreasonable search and seizure?


The problem with this case lies with the "standing" and "tort" issues.

To begin with, one has to consider the expectation of privacy one has on open land as such.  An example would be me out cutting my grass.  I have no expectation of privacy while riding my lawn mower.  Anyone with a camera can stop at the side of the road and take my picture.  Conversely, I am more than allowed to walk around my house naked with the blinds up.  In my home, I have an expectation of privacy, and you (meaning anyone) has no business peering in my windows.  So, to be honest, there is no expectation of privacy in an open field.  No Constitutional violation there.

Second, for the Court to grant relief, there must be a consequence related to the wrongdoing.  EG, they put a camera on his property, without his permission, took photos of him farking a goat, and filed charges against him.  Nothing of the sort is alleged.  He simply found a camera on his property and removed it.  Whilst he may not know exactly who to give the camera back to (we're taking his word on it) he KNOWS the camera isn't his property.  Technically by Texas state law, he's committed a theft.

So, there really is no Constitutional violation here.  He wasn't searched, the camera was in an open space, and he wasn't charged with any crime.  Right now it's a civil issue.  Border piggie wants his camera back, old man wants border piggies to stay off his land.

Sooooo, give back the camera you know isn't yours, and border piggies keep away from the old man.  He'll be dead soon anyway..

The closing statement in the argument states the Fourth Amendment is about the "right to be left alone"  Well, guess what.  It's not.

The 4th Amendment is about checking the power of the government when they use illegally obtained evidence to prosecute you.  The only thing they threatened to lock the guy up for was taking the camera.  They're not using pictures from the camera as evidence against him.

Is it shifty for them to go on someone's private property and just set up cameras wherever?  Sure it is.  There's a huge jump from shifty to Constitutional violation.  I don't think this is meets the bar, to be honest.

And I know I'll get flamed for it.  That's fine.  I've just spent a LOT of time in courthouses and suppression hearings.  Never heard of a suppression hearing where no crime was charged.
 
2018-02-22 04:51:37 PM  
Karac:
I think what he's saying is that the camera wasn't there to violate his rights, since they never tried to use anything it saw against him, only against other people.

It's like this: say you shoot someone and hide the gun in your neighbor's house.
If the police then search the neighbor's house without a warrant, find your gun, with your fingerprints, and it matches the bullets in the victim, can you then move to get the gun tossed out as evidence because they violated your right against unreasonable search and seizure?


Yes, this is pretty much the direction I was going.  I'm not saying it's a decent argument or will provide legal justification, just that they can differentiate between this and the car tracking example on that basis.

If they had recorded illegal activity by the landowner with the camera, even if that was not the purpose,  it would have been inadmissible as evidence against the landowner even if it had involved the landowner helping illegal immigrants.

The question is if law enforcement can use your property without your permission, and what you can and can't do about it, if you or others sanctioned by you to be on the property are not the target of the investigation.  I'm sure actual lawyers here can find relevant court decisions to answer this.
 
2018-02-22 04:53:55 PM  

weirdneighbour: Typical lawyer, looking for the $$$, yeah, he cares about some camera, unless he likes streaking in the desert.
/ what is IANAL?


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ianal

/ I am not a lawyer
 
2018-02-22 04:54:42 PM  

Cdr.Murdock: Karac: UsikFark: wxboy: ZAZ: It's kind of like reverse forfeiture. Usually the government takes your stuff and makes you spend years in court to get it back. This guy has the government's stuff and wants them to spend years in court to get it back.

If he can get the courts to think he tree is like a car, he'll win because the Supreme Court said police can't trespass on your car to plant a tracking device without a warrant.

IANAL but I think it would be slightly different than that example.  A tracker on your car is there almost certainly to track you.  The CBP argument will be that the camera on the tree isn't there to keep tabs on the landowner, but on other people who might also trespass on the land.

A pretty weak argument, but that's what they would go with to counter your point.

A camera on your property placed there by the government is tracking your activity (or lack thereof.) They should have asked. Go RTFA for details.

I think what he's saying is that the camera wasn't there to violate his rights, since they never tried to use anything it saw against him, only against other people.

It's like this: say you shoot someone and hide the gun in your neighbor's house.
If the police then search the neighbor's house without a warrant, find your gun, with your fingerprints, and it matches the bullets in the victim, can you then move to get the gun tossed out as evidence because they violated your right against unreasonable search and seizure?

The problem with this case lies with the "standing" and "tort" issues.

To begin with, one has to consider the expectation of privacy one has on open land as such.  An example would be me out cutting my grass.  I have no expectation of privacy while riding my lawn mower.  Anyone with a camera can stop at the side of the road and take my picture.  Conversely, I am more than allowed to walk around my house naked with the blinds up.  In my home, I have an expectation of privacy, and you (meaning anyone) has no business peerin ...


Oh, I agree that he'll have to give the camera back, and that the most he'll get is a judge telling CBP not to do it again.

But right now, I don't think he can give the camera back, because it's evidence in the lawsuit.
 
2018-02-22 04:57:00 PM  

gophurt: weirdneighbour: Typical lawyer, looking for the $$$, yeah, he cares about some camera, unless he likes streaking in the desert.
/ what is IANAL?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ianal

/ I am not a lawyer


I did that already, I just like to hear the fark army's opinion,  I really thought was some anal reference.
 
2018-02-22 04:57:10 PM  
While the lawyers have the camera in their possession, Mr. Palacios should show up on camera at random intervals and host a cooking show, do bad karaoke or something. Just keep the guy who has to monitor the cameras entertained.
 
2018-02-22 04:59:19 PM  

wildcardjack: In other news, there's a few thousand nifty cameras hiding in the border region. Pop the top, change the sim card, and you got a game camera to go looking for Bigfoot.


Finding the cameras could be hard.  They're made to be not seen.

Much easier to take a machete to the cable tethering one of those unattended blimps that Homeland Security uses as floating surveillance platforms all along the border.
 
2018-02-22 04:59:54 PM  

gunsmack: While the lawyers have the camera in their possession, Mr. Palacios should show up on camera at random intervals and host a cooking show, do bad karaoke or something. Just keep the guy who has to monitor the cameras entertained.


1. Wave his dick at it.
2. Mount it in the bathroom
3. Anus
 
2018-02-22 05:01:31 PM  

weirdneighbour: ok dicks, I looked it up, thought it was just a fark thing,  you guys is a bunch of smartie pantses


So you also ANAL now?
 
2018-02-22 05:03:31 PM  

Bslim: [s3.amazonaws.com image 558x320]

Chuck ain't gonna appreciate that


img.fark.netView Full Size

                                 He fears my mummy. That's why he hide's in Texas.
 
2018-02-22 05:04:31 PM  
Karac:

Never saw someone accused of anything even remotely sexual?  Especially pederastry?

The lynch mob mentality is alive and well. And if they won't do it themselves, they'll talk about the "general population" of prisons, which are overflowing with nonviolent "offenders" in the US thanks to drug laws and institutional racism, raping and murdering the accused like that's acceptable ever from anyone in or out of jail.

There's no political party of people who just reads the bill of rights, says "Hey, this is some good shiat. We should actually use these."  Nope. Everyone's got a pet amendment they don't like, even the third. Seriously, HOW CAN ANYONE WANT TO REPEAL THE THIRD!?
 
2018-02-22 05:04:35 PM  

weirdneighbour: ok dicks, I looked it up, thought it was just a fark thing,  you guys is a bunch of smartie pantses


Look, If you don't want Fark®™ answers, don't ask Fark®™ questions
 
2018-02-22 05:04:49 PM  

weirdneighbour: gophurt: weirdneighbour: Typical lawyer, looking for the $$$, yeah, he cares about some camera, unless he likes streaking in the desert.
/ what is IANAL?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ianal

/ I am not a lawyer

I did that already, I just like to hear the fark army's opinion,  I really thought was some anal reference.


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-22 05:05:38 PM  

weirdneighbour: ok dicks, I looked it up, thought it was just a fark thing,  you guys is a bunch of smartie pantses


It's preferable to being a stupid-pants.
 
2018-02-22 05:07:38 PM  

reaperducer: wildcardjack: In other news, there's a few thousand nifty cameras hiding in the border region. Pop the top, change the sim card, and you got a game camera to go looking for Bigfoot.

Finding the cameras could be hard.  They're made to be not seen.

Much easier to take a machete to the cable tethering one of those unattended blimps that Homeland Security uses as floating surveillance platforms all along the border.


Except they've got antennas.  Antennae?  Whatever.  So if you knew what frequency they were using you could set up a few directional receivers and triangulate.  I kind of doubt they're using regular cellular networks, which would lead to an overwhelming number of false hits, just because cellular networks suck ass out in the sticks.
 
Displayed 50 of 86 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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