Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Adam H. Kerman" Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: "Open fields" doctrine Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 23:36:26 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 48 Message-ID: References: Injection-Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 01:36:26 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5a14dbb43603ffc1a237bfb39dd656a8"; logging-data="874663"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/seaFtCNiqgzKIDZW1Eqdmn/JRBjAoXw8=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:Bibno8A1fJEVztjMIFs4B6gwU2w= X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) Bytes: 3195 BTR1701 wrote: >Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>BTR1701 wrote: >>>Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>>>Recently, I started two different threads that addressed issues related >>>>to warrantless search and seizure. Other related concepts are the >>>>exclusionary rule and the extent to which this applies in criminal >>>>matters or certain civil matters as well. Furthermore, is there a >>>>relationship between warrantless search and seizure and the law of >>>>trespass? >>>>The "plain view" doctrine wasn't at issue in these situations because >>>>the contraband or building code/zoning violation wasn't obvious without >>>>the trespass. >>>>In one thread, the landowner lost on appeal. He had no expectation of >>>>privacy from drone overflights gathering evidence of code violations in >>>>a situation in which the landowner had previously agreed to comply with >>>>code but had never agreed to continuing inspections. >>>>In another thread, the landowner won a partial victory in which state >>>>game wardens could not trespass to place wildlife cameras hoping to >>>>catch hunting violations. >>>>Where does the landowner have an expectation of privacy? Where the >>>>"open fields doctrine" applies, he has no expectation of privacy. >>>But a landowner does still have legal dominion and control over the >>>property, so while he may not have a right to privacy in those open >>>fields, he does have the legal right to evict trespassers as he finds >>>them. So if he comes across a cop trespassing on his land, while he may >>>not have a privacy or 4th Amendment claim against the cop, he does have >>>the legal right to tell him to get the hell off his land. >>How does the exclusionary rule apply? In Oliver, police were allowed to >>ignore the fence, locked gate, and No Trespassing signs. They were >>committing unlawful trespass but the evidence was not excluded. >>Does a lawful order to leave the property and don't come back exclude >>evidence? >It may not exclude evidence, but it doesn't immunize the cop from being >charged with trespassing. Then there's no remedy with no expectation of privacy on his own land. >. . .