Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Wildlife agents need warrants to place cameras on private property (was: Fourteenth and a half amendment: Warrantless searches of two PA hunt clubs by game wardens upheld at trial court)
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 15:42:03 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <3bf74jpgrplt5f9fhm48ti792hg28i7hr4@4ax.com>
References: <umhltb$645$1@dont-email.me> <v2061t$9ndt$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-0ED4CB.11071914052024@news.giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 21:42:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cdf5ce281d15f92cf551a47f48af19ab";
	logging-data="388554"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19P5gddR27KIjVJjRuYPqdmO9pBcS1hWng="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:p6K9XSyB+1ZxKF70u26Y4osqNdo=
Bytes: 6216

On Tue, 14 May 2024 11:07:19 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <v2061t$9ndt$1@dont-email.me>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> Another Steve Lehto video also touching on the open fields doctrine.
>> This federal doctrine goes back to the 1920s (Lehto incorrectly says 1930)
>> that police may enter upon private land to conduct a warrantless search in
>> specific circumstances in which the land is an open field. Typically, to
>> search the interior of a building or structure, a warrant is required,
>> and there is lesser protection against warrantless search on the
>> curtilage, the portion of the land used to approach and enter the
>> building. I cannot follow this doctrine at all. One is allowed to walk
>> up to the front door of a building to knock, seeking entry, without
>> committing trespass. If the area is fenced and restricted, then I
>> suppose curtilage is the approach to the gate. There might be evidence
>> of a crime that requires no warrant to obtain, but just because it's
>> curtilage doesn't allow police to seek evidence that's not in plain
>> sight. 
>> 
>> What's I've never understood is, wherever the curtilage boundary is, how
>> can the rest of the land be open field if it's the front yard of a
>> building and it's not a field of any kind?
>
>I've always wondered how far this 'authority' to go on private property 
>extends. It's one thing for a wildlife cop to hop a fence and plant a 
>camera while you're not there, but what if you're out and about on your 
>land and come across one of these guys in the act? Do you have the 
>authority as the property owner to say get the hell out of here? I mean, 
>you would if it was any other trespasser, but do these guys have the 
>legal right to remain on your land even if confronted by the property 
>owner who tells them to leave?
>
>And what about the cameras? If I'm out in the woods on my land and I 
>find some spy camera stuck to a tree that I didn't put there and that I 
>don't want there, am I legally obligated to leave it there? Can I take 
>it down? If not, can I turn it so that it points at the ground? Can I 
>put a sock over it? What does the law say about that and how can it 
>possibly be consistent with the 4th Amendment?

Wasn't that an issue that got raised with someone finding a tracking
device on their vehicle that had been placed by some police or federal
officer. I can't recall if what the person was allowed to do with it.
Certainly they should be allowed to remove it. Can they junk it or
sell it? If not, then why not. It's not like there is going to be a
"Return to the offices of the FBI" sign on the device.

>> In any event, the state constitution overrides portions of the open
>> fields doctrine.
>> 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z1DQtQ-ALY
>> 
>> This case was decided under the Tennessee constitution which has greater
>> protection against warantless searches than the federal constitution.
>> 
>> Landowners sued because state game wardens entered private property to
>> place wildlife camera hoping to catch violations of state hunting laws.
>> They have the power to do so under state law (whether or not the
>> landowner posted no trespassing signs) but the landowners have
>> privacy protection in the state constitution if they taken steps to
>> assert control with no trespassing signs or fencing.
>> 
>> Lehto was skeptical that game wardens had no time to obtain a warrant to
>> place the cameras. I suggest it's because they couldn't articulate
>> reasonable suspicion.
>
>That's the not the standard for a warrant. You have to be able to 
>articulate probable cause, which is a higher bar to clear than 
>reasonable suspicion.

One would think they aren't just going out and placing these cameras
randomly. So they've either heard or been told of people shooting (and
presumably hunting) on the land. As that's the only reason I can see
them deciding to place the cameras on that land. Which would suggest
that , at least in the case of someone reporting the shooting/hunting,
that there was time to get a warrant.

>> Lehto loved the appellate judge's question to the state. The state claimed
>> they had an interest in protecting wildlife from illegal hunting. The state
>> asserted that the people who wanted to keep game wardens off their land
>> should desist from hunting. Lehto didn't understand how the state would
>> make that determination without entering the land. The judge said even
>> if protecting wildlife was a worthwhile goal if the state had a stronger
>> duty to protect persons than wildlife. The judge asked if a warrant were
>> needed to look for criminal violations, shouldn't it also need a warrant
>> to look for civil violations of hunting laws?
>> 
>> The landowners won. However, the law wasn't found to be unconstitutional
>> (as there were circumstances in which a warrantless search could be
>> conducted) but applied inappropriately in these circumstances.