Subject: Re: Idaho statute prohibits police from relying upon open fields doctrine when conducting warrantless searches
Adam H. Kerman <
ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Huge victory for the privacy of land owners from police conducting warrantless searches in Idaho.
In Hester v. United States (1924), the Supreme Court ruled that Fourth Amendment protection to the people "is not extended to the open fields."
This was decided to make it easier to enforce prohibition laws
Yes, this is one of those situations (like asset forfeiture and the Constitution-free zone at the border) where the Court just said, "Yeah,
that 4th Amendment is nice and all but in this case it's a tremendous pain
in the government's ass, the so the government just doesn't have to abide
by it anymore." No pretense at 'interpretation'. Just flat-out making shit
up out of thin air and nullifying a guaranteed constitutional right.
when looking for stills, but then police began making warrantless searches for nyriad other reasons.
With new legislation just signed into law, police can no longer rely
upon the open fields doctrine when conducting warrantless searches. In
order for evidence to be admissable, they'll have to show probable cause
to obtain a warrant.
This will not apply to searches conducted by the United States
government.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngB6RJ2GFnQ
I've always wondered what the extent of the Open Fields Doctrine was.
We know the cops can enter when you're not there and the 4th Amendment
doesn't apply. But if you come across them actively trespassing and tell
them directly, "This is my property. You don't have my permission to be
here. Please leave," can they legally ignore you? Does the doctrine not
only give them a pass from the 4th Amendment warrant requirement but also invalidate *all* your rights to control access to your own property under
state and local laws also?
And when wildlife officials trespass onto your land and do things like
attach surveillance cameras to trees, are you required to leave them in
place when you find them? Does Open Fields require you to allow continuous government surveillance of your own land? If you can't remove the cameras,
can you hang a tarp or stand up a piece of plywood in front of them so they can't see anything? Does the doctrine not only require you to tolerate your
own surveillance government by the government but take active measures to enable its success?
These are questions no one ever seems to address when it comes to the Open Fields Doctrine. But good on Idaho for recognizing what a legal abomination
it is and taking steps to neuter it as much as they can.
--- PyGate Linux v1.5.13
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)