Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
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: <v2jb5q$qm57$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v2iju7$mhk3$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-5BC912.11453721052024@news.giganews.com> <v2itlk$nu3u$2@dont-email.me> <atropos-2AC1B9.13200421052024@news.giganews.com>
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 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>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.

>>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.

>. . .