Path: Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 18:36:04 +0000
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: "Open fields" doctrine
References: <v2iju7$mhk3$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 11:45:37 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-5BC912.11453721052024@news.giganews.com>
Lines: 32
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-i2TcX36N4U+jhw787DLqfKdeHJ9+1JbLqcTgX07HKf4eYH/ZRmWLJpJT9fd2DfvRXrabnc5xBrdBepP!dhL5/DisH5lwXmMLOoV8tfmR7O87iN0Z48O4k3qbFeHOiuFFIn9JayPY9CLqUg3h1G+ZVZkn40Md!5n8=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 2578

In article <v2iju7$mhk3$1@dont-email.me>,
 "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> 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.