Path: Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 19:06:46 +0000
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.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)
References: <umhltb$645$1@dont-email.me> <v2061t$9ndt$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-0ED4CB.11071914052024@news.giganews.com> <v209kv$aem8$3@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 12:15:40 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-8C1A8D.12154014052024@news.giganews.com>
Lines: 47
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-DpmEMNHNLEfRRZXnerU5p9lhVCqt1KyVCN04XMAiCOJQ+gZSmJEs+rfp2edkLw5Ntuox+4vb6dc39la!rPoAYcCTswct6jbzN4I2W7tLmVz7FimfcDlW86XSRd8lh5cqCpt2K/gp3kj7V23jK7Lk0aL44h2k!TxE=
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: 3772

In article <v209kv$aem8$3@dont-email.me>,
 "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >"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?
> 
> It sure doesn't sound like it.
> 
> >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?
> 
> How about law of abandoned property? One of the comments said to place a
> No Trespassing sign on the ground and point the camera lens toward it.

That's awesome.