How Can This Be Legal?

[Ozarks Tom]

I'd never heard of the "Open Fields" policy for surveillance on private property.  On its face it sounds sort of like someone can look across your field, which would seem normal, but apparently it's an entirely different story for State and Federal agents who consider it giving them the ability to watch your every move outside your dwelling.  Unbelievable!!

Seated at his kitchen table, finishing off the remains of a Saturday breakfast, Hunter Hollingsworth’s world was rocked by footsteps on his front porch and pounding at the door, punctuated by an aggressive order: “Open up or we’ll kick the door down.”

Surrounded on all sides of his house, and the driveway blocked, Hollingsworth was the target of approximately 10 federal and state wildlife officials packing pistols, shotguns and rifles. And what was Hollingsworth’s crime? Drugs, armed robbery, assault, money laundering? Not quite.

Months prior, in 2018, the Tennessee landowner removed a game camera secretly strapped to a tree on his private land by wildlife officials in order to monitor his activity without apparent sanction or probable cause. Repeat: Hollingsworth’s residence was searched by U.S. government and state officials, dressed to the nines in assault gear, seeking to regain possession of a trail camera—the precise camera they had surreptitiously placed on his private acreage after sneaking onto his property at night, loading the camera with active SD and SIM cards, and zip-tying the device roughly 10’ high up a tree—all without a warrant. 

www.agweb.com/news/policy/politics/government-cameras-hidden-private-property-welcome-open-fields

[farmrbrown]

Another reminder that 'legal' and 'constitutional' are often two different things.

[fordy]

.............I believe that there is an appeal about this issue that has been accepted for review by the Supreme Ct. ! I'm not sure if IT is about this case or another ! Anyway , one of the legal foundations is representing the person for no fee ! In fact , Steve Lehto may have reviewed (on Utube) the appeal to the S. Ct. . , fordy    

[sawmilljim]

There are lots of places that the police are judges make their own laws. Problem is many people don’t have the money for any sort of court battle. Those that do fight in court face delays after delays often years. I have followed a few of these cases presented by Long Island Audit on YouTube.

[sunny225]

Apr 11, 2024 13:30:42 GMT farmrbrown said:

Another reminder that 'legal' and 'constitutional' are often two different things.

And TPTB & their jack-booted thugs don't care if it is either one.
Like sawmilljim said, they make up their own rules when they want to.

[joebill]

You mean it is really not legal for Biden to pay off all of my credit cards with taxpayer money?

I would just keep taking the cameras down, turn them in at the local cop shop as "stuff abandoned on my property by person or persons unknown."

I might also put up my own cameras and call the local cops on any "trespassers" as they shoed up. I also have signs I can tack up that say "DANGER KEEP OUT RIFLE RANGE" that might be a hit.....Joe

[farmrbrown]

This was an interesting gem I just found. Y'all remember Edward Snowden don't you?

[sunny225]

Yes, I remember Edward Snowden. And so does the apparatus called the US government.

They want to be able to bypass the 4th Amendment and the rest of the Constitution. They already do it most of the time now.

[Ozarks Tom]

It's really simple, if the government has reason to believe you've committed, or are conspiring to commit a crime, take the evidence to a judge and get a warrant. That's basically what the 4th Amendment requires. Anything outside of that procedure is against the Constitution and against the law.

The intelligence community has always disliked and abused the Constitution because it limits their, in their minds, their rightful power over the country. When Schumer said they had "six ways from Sunday" to destroy a person's life he wasn't exaggerating a bit.

The question should be: What kind of hold over the politicians does the IC have that would get them to vote for nearly unlimited collection of information on anyone not provable before a judge to be committing a crime? Answer: Apparently lots of information on those politicians. Otherwise they'd be as outraged as the average person who doesn't want their every keystroke of phone call recorded. To paraphrase the mafia: Nice life you've got the Representative, it'd be a real shame if something happened to it".

[farmrbrown]

Apr 13, 2024 0:36:12 GMT Ozarks Tom said:

It's really simple, if the government has reason to believe you've committed, or are conspiring to commit a crime, take the evidence to a judge and get a warrant. That's basically what the 4th Amendment requires. Anything outside of that procedure is against the Constitution and against the law.

Absolutely correct.
What still amazes me is that precedents and rulings by the courts will stand almost unchallenged for decades, a century, or longer even though they are so blatantly unconstitutional that a 1st year law student or a keen amateur could prove it in court if they had the chance.

Take this false "doctrine" case (Open Fields Doctrine - 1924, Hester v. United States) for example in the OP.
In all hinges on the word 'curtilage' which is an old English term for the area around a house called the courtyard.
SCOTUS claimed that the open fields beyond the perimeter of a home's courtyard/curtilage was exempt from the 4th amendment protections.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hester_v._United_States

They also used that precedent to apply the same thing to automobiles in 1925:

reason.com/2018/05/29/supreme-court-rules-8-1-against-warrantl/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_exception

However in every case where a search may be considered constitutional under the 4th amendment the search must be conducted because the officers had probable cause at the time they searched it. No exceptions.
Why am I so sure? Let's just say I know a few lawyers that were well paid to make sure the cases they handled complied with the constitution.
Yes, if you're in a car 500 miles from your driveway, the police may search your vehicle after a traffic stop without a warrant in hand.....IF they have probable cause. But before any evidence they find can be admitted in court, they must obtain a valid search warrant, after the fact ASAP. Otherwise that search will be ruled invalid and evidence obtained is inadmissable.


Although the SWAT raid for a stolen trail cam was laughable that WAS the main mistake the Tenn. landowner made. There are a dozen ways to taunt and torment the Keystone Cops without breaking any laws yourself. 
A shot of black spray paint on the lens, move it from 4ft off the ground to way up high and out on a thin limb, pointed at the ground, then girdle the tree with a chainsaw so anyone over 100 lbs won't take a chance on climbing up to get it.
A fire ant nest around the base of the tree would be a surprising, yet warm welcome.
I'd probably leave a note on the tree that said, "Smile, you're on camera and you just made the D.A.'s next trespassing case a slam dunk!"

Anyway, be smart, play safe and have fun y'all.