Posted on 01/22/2013 2:25:19 PM PST by Altariel
For me, without a warrant, whatever they learned from the cameras is inadmissible. There is no difference between a covert camera and a wire-tap.
I don't like druggies and I don't like drug dealers. But private property means private property. You have no right to surveil a private citizen without probable cause and if its on his property, a warrant.
“Officers entering an ‘open field’ is not an area enumerated as protected under the Fourth Amendment,”
And if this is true, then why the cameras, why not just wander throught their fields openly, searching at will as they claim they have the right to do?
Jury nullification isn’t just for the left. We need to absolutely refuse to convict on this stuff when the government does these kinds of things.
It’s the only way to stop them. Jury nullification. You don’t have to give a reason, just refuse to vote guilty.
Many things have to happen between there and the jail, with the hopeful instruction of the constitution. The popo oughtn’t go in a validly private posted area for just any old thing, with no warrant (there wasn’t one here) and no exigent circumstance. This may be a situation where the libertarian Thomas may get Roberts and Kennedy to go along with the wise Latina and some other liberal for an ideologically mixed narrow split.
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I see your 4th amendment and raise you my 9th.
Glad to see that somebody is planning to argue this all the way up to SCOTUS. It's time to put a stop to the surveillance state.
The "open fields" exception to the 4th Amendment is unfortunately very old-- it goes back at least as far as Hester v. United States in 1924, which held that the 4th Amendment didn't require a search warrant for a search of open land, even if that search involved a trespass.
I’m not saying the cops were right. Just that the wording in 5A isn’t make it immediately obvious that what they did was wrong. Such ambiguities are exactly the types of interpretation the SCOTUS should provide.
That was before the modern situation of the exclusionary rule; such a situation, even if found to be contrary to the constitution, in that day would not have derailed a criminal prosecution like it does now. Instead, the government could be sued for the allegedly illegal search (and possibly, quite separately, for the trespass). This no longer happens.
I wouldn’t shoot it. I’d take it down, alter the serial #, paint it and install it on my house or outbuildings for my security system. Unless it was junk then I’d sell it on E-bay. lol
I don't like druggies and I don't like drug dealers. But private property means private property. You have no right to surveil a private citizen without probable cause and if its on his property, a warrant.
I agree. This is a price of The War On Drugs and freedom and rights wise the cost has now become too great. There was very likely more illicit drugs being used by officials in Washington, DC in the past weekend than all persons living in the entire state of Wisconsin in the past month. The allowance of property forfeitures in the W.O.D. needs to be stopped by federal law. Once that is ended many of the abuses will end as well.
I also believe the time has come for the Judaical Branch of government except the USSC to be elected by We The People and USSC terms limited to one term of twelve years. We need term limits in a three branches of government.
Exactly.
This “curtilage” BS is what a local judge cited in giving Weed Nazi Sonny Gohrman a free pass in getting one of our citizens murdered by the police. According to the judge, Daniel Wasilchen didn’t get his civil rights taken away by the weed weasel because they weren’t on the “curtilage” of his property. The weed whacker came back with a Snohomish County deputy and Daniel was killed in the exchange because he refused to back down or put his gun away on his own property.
What! The JOOZ have taken over the USSC!
(Seriously that should say “Judicial branch”)
I guess that might make it easier to get a court OUT of an Obama-packed situation, but it would also make it easier to get a court IN it, as well.
If you somehow discovered that the cameras had been installed then much fun could be had.
Enlist some helpers and stage fake clan rallies, bigfoot, aliens and UFOs ...etc ;-)
I always find it amazing that ‘settled case law’ only goes back to say...1920. Anything older is just....old and forgotten.
I see no emanations from penumbras in my copy of Constitution. Damn, I always get the out-dated stuffs
No, the exclusionary rule in federal prosecutions dates back to Weeks v. United States in 1914; Hester was an exclusionary rule case.
The Hester case says that the rule that no search warrant is needed for open fields comes from English Common Law, but I never looked to see if that's true.
Another point: the U.S. Supreme Court had almost no jurisdiction over criminal cases until 1889; before then, federal criminal cases were heard only by Circuit Courts, so in the field of criminal law, there really aren't very many SCOTUS cases older than 1920. And search and seizure cases became common only with Prohibition.
Can Citizens legally Hide a Surveillance Camera on Govt Land?
Almost literally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.