Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v2iju7$mhk3$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: "Open fields" doctrine Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 16:59:51 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 53 Message-ID: <v2iju7$mhk3$1@dont-email.me> Injection-Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 18:59:52 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cf57a54d4f325274924ced8abce80213"; logging-data="738947"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19FSPR7NPztu3pACHassxOUNknaU1jF1oc=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:3Y7YaxALc9xizTaqeFPDnE5au+o= X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) 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. The expectation of privacy has been denied the landowner, despite the language of the Fourth Amendment, because of a very narrow interpretation of the right against search and seizure in Hester v. United States (1924). Searches in such areas as pastures, wooded areas, open water, and vacant lots need not comply with the requirements of warrants and probable cause. The doctrine was re-affirmed in Oliver v. United States (1984), in which warrantless intrusion past no trespassing signs and around a locked gate, to view field not visible from outside property, was approved. Institute for Justice would like the doctrine reversed and made a calculation that 96% of private land in the United States is subject to the doctrine. They claim that in both 1924 and 1984, the Supreme Court was being more political than legal, that Americans wanted certain problems addressed and they wanted the government to have wide latitude in searching for contraband, hoping that its seizure would stem the problem. In 1924, a pre-Prohibition liquor control tax law was being enforced, looking for stills on private property. In 1984, the concern was about growing marijuana crops. They also pointed out that other parts of the Constitution are read expansively for greater liberty, such as the speech provision in the First Amendment. Speech is not limited to the spoken word but art and music and performance and certain public acts. Ruling Lets Gov't TRESPASS on 96% of PRIVATE Land in the U.S. Institute for Justice https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN-VEE7fAEs