Why the 4th Amendment Doesn’t Protect You Like You Think It Does
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лип 2024
- Decades ago, the U.S. Supreme Court created the so-called Open Fields Doctrine. The result was an exception to 4th Amendment restrictions on the government’s ability to snoop on Americans. With a new case in Tennessee, IJ is pushing forward a strategy to restore those limits and protect basic property rights. Learn more about the state of the law-and where we go from here-in today’s episode.
More podcasts: ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-pod...
Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing the fight for freedom-directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. In each episode, host Melanie Hildreth talks with litigators, researchers, and activists to give listeners an in-depth, inside look at cutting-edge legal and policy issues-and how they affect the lives of ordinary Americans everywhere.
iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0...
Google: www.google.com/podcasts?feed=...
Sticher: www.stitcher.com/podcast/inst...
iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7
Google: www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv
Sticher: www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr
www.clarionledger.com/story/news/politics/2020/07/31/asset-forfeiture-mississippi-police-seize-rental-car-drug-case/5442877002/
I came across a very strange news article and thought it might be interesting for someone at IJ to look into. There does not seem to be a straightforward way to "officially" submit something like this on the website. I am not personally involved in any way.
At what point can unsolicited pieces of equipment or other objects left on a person's land be considered a "gift" and disposed of legally ?
“…If you get [perform the test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-confident [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”
Each “cycle” of the test is a quantum leap in amplification and magnification of the test specimen taken from the patient.
Too many cycles, and the test will turn up all sorts of irrelevant material that will be wrongly interpreted as relevant.
That’s called a false positive.
What Fauci failed to say on the video is: the FDA, which authorizes the test for public use, recommends the test should be run up to 40 cycles. Not 35.
INSTITUTE... the original meaning of Constitution has never changed and our Constitution was intended to be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, which supersedes ALL other laws!!! That “open field law” is a violation of Constitutional rights! Even if someone was growing illegal plants, the property owners STILL have private property rights!!! The property owners don’t have the right to SELL their plants, outside of their property, but technically, they should be able to GROW whatever they want, on their own property!!!
Oxygen Lover
Where did you get that idea?
Other than the XIV Amendment, property is not mentioned.
Property law is vast and complicated.
States and counties have more to do with property than the Federal government.
No where have I found can a person perform illegal acts on their property.
If it is by state statutes illegal to grow something, it is illegal. Nothing in the constitution says otherwise.
The real reason they are doing this is because some bureaucrat wants to find an excuse to seize (steal) their land.
Right. I wonder who they pissed off...?
Seizure over a plant that the declaration of independence was wrote on. What a shame.
@INFINITY They've ALREADY stolen it, by conning the original owner (who HAD the title) into bringing in that title and recording it. Then they 'reclassified' the formerly PRIVATE LAND as COMMERCIAL property, a.k.a. 'real estate' or 'real property', then put up the title as collateral for 'municipal improvements', after which there was a lien on it. The 'real estate' is now considered 'in commerce' - and THAT is why they can now control it, because that's the ONLY thing a municipal corporation can control. The remedy? See my previous comment, above.
My first thought.
Facts.
You put something on my property without my permission... it's now my property...
Thank you for the camera mr gov
Wonder what would happen to those cameras meet up with a shotgun. LOL
Correct because possession is 90% of the law, and if it's on your property then it's in your possession. The only exception to this is if for example you signed a legal contract to allow someone to store their boat, camper or other item on your property for an agreed amount of time. Or agree in writing to board someones domestic animal, or their livestock animal.
@@valeriepittman5066 exactly
@David Smith exactly and you think the judges are going to listen ? fuck no they are going to do what ever the fuck they want .. so how do AMERICANS deal with tyrannical governments that forget their place is to SERVE the people?
execution .. on the grounds of treason ...
zero tolerance ..
I was my 97 year old father's POA (both health care and durable, per his request) when a family member (who was upset that he didn't choose her) decided to retaliate by making false reports about my refusal to place him in a nursing home -- claiming I was "neglecting" him by allowing him to stay home -- with a home health care service in place. The COUNTY (this was in Ohio) demanded that a video camera be placed IN HIS HOME to which a caseworker had 24/7 access. No warrant. No probable cause. I protested, but was basically blown off. My dad had some mild dementia, and he was clearly visible on camera ambling out to the kitchen in his underwear, scratching... Did the county give a rat's ___ about his dignity or privacy? Not a bit. Now THAT really is abuse.
I would ask if the homeowner retained the right to walk around nude in his own home and would promise a daily show, perhaps with guests performing various adult activities for the camera.
What a ridiculous thing to have happen. I’d take it down, or block it. That is a humiliation to your dad. Is there no dignity?
Let the other person care for him also, why can’t everyone share in the responsibility, but be sure that the rules are that he stays at home where he wants to be.
@@joyceobeys6818 Needless to say, I agree with you! Sadly, my father is now dead. Stressed to death, I believe, by a court system that made a very difficult situation much, much worse. After numerous court actions initiated by the angry family member, the county court decided to simply employ a "quick and dirty solution" and appoint a greedy but incompetent attorney his guardian. Their message? "Well, now neither one of you is in control! Happy?" Of course, the attorney took him from his home immediately. After he was bounced around for a while (getting genuinely confused at this point), he ended up in a cheap facility, grossly understaffed during COVID, and died of neglect (severely dehydrated on admission to the hospital) within 8 weeks. Thanks so much for your concern, and I'm sorry to report that the "rest of the story" was anything but a happy ending.
The government can be so cruel and disgusting. I’m sorry you all had to deal with that. Just appalling
The Supreme Court has become frustratingly unwilling to make any meaningful rulings, regarding any constitutional rights.
Spinelessness is preferred compared to how they usually rule (against we the people).
That is why Jefferson said that it is dangerous to rely on one court for final say. I am paraphrasing
1000% agreed
The Supreme Court exists to protect the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. They should not allow any change to the original Bill of Rights of the Constitution, including the 4th Amendment as written by the forefathers that framed the Constitution. 911 was a phony excuse to weaken the 4th Amendment, and needs to be returned to its original written words.
@moonshine 143 The TRUE Test of Freedom is the Right to Test it.
"Those who are capable of tyranny are capable of perjury to sustain it ."
"... only those who have the will and the power to shoot down their fellow men, are the real rulers in this, as in all other (so-called) civilized countries; for by no others will civilized men be robbed, or enslaved ."
~ Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority ~
"So these villains, who call themselves governments, well understand that their power rests primarily upon stolen money. With money they can hire soldiers, & with soldiers extort money. And, when their authority is denied, the first use they always make of money, is to hire soldiers to kill or subdue all who refuse them more money ."
- The payment of taxes, being compulsory, of course furnishes no evidence that any one voluntarily supports the Constitution.
It is true that the [theory] of our Constitution is, that ALL taxes are paid VOLUNTARILY; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other insurance company, & that he is just as free not to be protected, & not to pay any tax, as he is to pay a tax, & be protected.
But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact.
~ The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: "Your money, or your life."
And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat...
The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets; But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; AND it is FAR MORE DASTARDLY & SHAMEFUL .
The Highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, AND crime of his own act;
- He does not pretend that he has ANY rightful claim to Your money, or that he intends to use it for Your own benefit.
- He does not pretend to be anything but a robber.
- He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "Protector," & that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection."
- He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these.
- Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do.
- He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you.
- He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, & forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; & by branding you as a "rebel", a "traitor", & an "enemy to your country", & shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands.
- He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, & insults, & villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
The proceedings of those robbers & murderers, who call themselves "the government" are directly the opposite of these of the single Highwayman.
In the first place, they ["the government"] do not, like him, make themselves individually known; or, consequently, take upon themselves personally the responsibility of their acts; On the contrary, they secretly (by secret ballot) designate some one of their number to commit the robbery in their behalf, while they keep themselves practically concealed. They ["the government"] say to the person thus designated:
"Go to Mr./Mrs. A-B-, and say to him/her that "the government" has need of money to meet the expenses of protecting him & his property. If he presumes to say that he has never contracted with us to protect him, & that he wants none of our protection, say to him that that is our business, & not his; that we choose to protect him, whether he desires us to do so or not; AND that we DEMAND pay, too, for protecting him. If he dares to inquire who the individuals are, who have thus taken upon themselves the title of "the government" & who assume to protect him, & demand payment of him, without his having ever made any contract with them, say to him that that, too, is our business, & not his; that we do not choose to make ourselves individually known to him; that we have secretly (by secret ballot) appointed you our agent to give him notice of our demands, and, if he complies with them, to give him, in our name, a receipt that will protect him against any similar demand for the present year. If he refuses to comply, seize & sell enough of his property to pay not only our demands, but all your own expenses & trouble beside.
If he resists the seizure of his property, call upon the bystanders to help you (doubtless some of them will prove to be members of our band).
If, in defending his property, he should kill any of our band who are assisting you, capture him at all hazards;
charge him (in one of our courts) with murder, convict him, & hang him.
If he should call upon his neighbors, or any others who, like him, may be disposed to resist our demands, & they should come in large numbers to his assistance, cry out that they are all rebels and traitors; that "our country is in danger!"
Call upon the commander of our hired murderers; tell him to quell the rebellion & save the country," cost what it may.
Tell him to kill all who resist, though they should be hundreds of thousands; & thus strike terror into all others similarly disposed;
See that the work of murder is thoroughly done, that we may have no further trouble of this kind hereafter. When these traitors shall have thus been taught our strength & our determination, they will be good loyal citizens for many years, & pay their taxes without a why or a wherefore."
It is under such compulsion as this that taxes, so called, are paid.
And how much proof the payment of taxes affords, that the people consent to support "the government" it needs no further argument to show.
~ Lysander Spooner (1870)
There is no "absolute ownership" of land in America anymore; that ended when the government started taxing land; all you have bought is what is called "user's rights" but you do not "own" the land; you are basically renting the land from the government, you pay rent(taxes) on it every year, and when you stop paying your rent they will sell the "user rights" to someone else and throw you off of it! You can't do anything on "your own land" until you first get a "permit" (ask for permission) and then pay the real owners some money and then they will tell you, you can do something on their land that you think you own, and they will also tell you how to do it to(codes) and when (burn laws); now do you see that you are just renting your land from the real owners(the government); oh and this is what socialism is all about, welcome to the socialist states of America people!
THAT'S WHY THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY PROPERTY TAX
Corporations also use right wing arguments to disallow complaints about their pollution, for example. This issue is really not right or left, just right or wrong...
Slaves in the matrix
I thought the same thing about "owning property". Property taxes make you a renter from the government, not an owner. In West Virginia, they even apply "property taxes" to cars. You really don't own anything.
You are of course another misinformed fool that believes a right wing fascist police state is communism. Stfu until you read a book and learn what youre talking about. It's not communism. It's fascism. It's the War on drugs. It's the patriot act. Whike you are supporting the law and order they're making the fascist police state and telling dummies hey look out for those commies, while they kill you and your family and shout it's communism. Don't be a victim of ignorance.
So basically those public employees that entered private property lied and the judges allowed such lies to dictate what these public employees can lie and have continued to lie..
Hmm, I wonder what you do when the judges themselves are criminals.
rumpleforeskin73 They are not just Democrats. Look for the link in replies to comments in this video about the asset forfeiture case in Mississippi that is linked to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a republican fizzle- f a r t appointed by Trump.
judges are nothing more than glorified lawyers . corrupt to the core . they do as they are told to do .
SOUNDS LIKE WE LIVE IN RUSSIA
@@yunggolem4687 most of them are.
It is sad that this has to be brought to the courts. Government officials overstepping AGAIN.
Super fun! Install a camera on the judge’s property pointing it at their bathroom and bedroom and stream it live to the internet!
Yep, that'll win your case 😂
Exactly
Great idea
Stalking and Peeping Tom violations w/o warrants, as well as gross intrusions onto private property and violations of privacy rights under color of state law. Sounds like a federal case to me, since property ownership and personal privacy, and a legitimate interest in keeping the government out of private bedrooms, and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures are fundamental rights under US Supreme Court precedent.
The open fields doctrine arose when animal trails across virgin forests became used for "public" transit across the original huge primeval forests and open lands, including getting to rivers bordering such forests or lands, but no easements adverse to any landowner's private property rights arose from such uses, even if carried on for many decades in states observing Common Law traditional interpretations of property law. (In other words the existence of pig paths through a forest does not carry with it the presumption that the pigs, whether 2-legged or 4-legged, acquired some adverse easement through long time use; all of the elements of adverse possession would have to be met.)
P.S. How does a landowner know if a strange camera has been planted by government agents flouting the law, or by Peeping Toms videoing and posting on the Internet nude pictures of the landowner"s underage teenage girls or boys while nude, including taking a shower or a bath or engaging in private acts, or husbands and wives having sex in the swimming pool in their secluded front yard or in their bedroom? Is it a crime to destroy the government's cameras, or to redirect by mirror or otherwise obscure the view of the lenses of the government-placed video cameras which were installed without consent and without a warrant or even probable cause. How many years can these cameras be left there recording everything they do. Can the government publish the juicy parts of those videos on the Internet without fear of civil suit or criminal prosecution. Can a suit for inverse condemnation be brought for the lost value of their property by the taking of their rights to privacy by Wildlife officers under color of state law, officers who generally aren't limited to enforcing only wildlife laws, including federal migratory bird laws, but who can enforce any state laws, unless specifically limited by statute. Having attended school in Tennessee for a number of years, I have observed there has been no progress in the judicial system there since before the days of Andrew Jackson.
Exactly what I was thinking. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Strangers climbed up on old Rockytop,
Looking for a moonshine still.
Never came back down from Rockytop,
Guess they never will.
"Open fields" is one thing... but crossing onto someone else's property to spy on them is trespassing and therefore unlawful...
Trespassing is trespassing... with or without a badge...
Would like to know if they can shoot the trespassers.
@@Sovereign-Individual
Should be able to... unwarranted and uninvited company is trespassing...
"No trespassing" signs are there for the trespassers' safety... not the property owner's'...
Expecting a level of privacy on a farm with "open fields" is ridiculous. If you are out in your fields, anyone can see you from outside of your home or property. The 4th amendment DOES NOT protect simple right to privacy, it protects citizens from government intrusion...period! If someone walks onto your property and you ask them to leave and never come back, then any return is tresspassing...criminal tresspassing.
@@Sovereign-Individual No, the public must follow the law. Only government employees are above the law and can kill citizens legally.
It very much sounds like Civil Asset Forfeiture in Tennessee. Such that both issues are attempts at what I would call criminal Revenue Generation tyranny against the citizens of the state (the only difference being that in Civil Asset Forfeiture, a lot of the victims don't live in Tennessee).
I think the fact that "Most People" would be shocked at learning this, already proves Society DOES NOT deam it reasonable.
Also I was under the impression that No Trespassing signs clearly marking land were intended to serve as the "first Warning" not to trespass. Therefore anyone caught beyond these signs is in fact now trespassing. But what do I know I just live in Tennessee.
a no Trespass sign means you are hiding something...... thats what i was told by locals in an area i own a hunting camp at. People are crazy and nosey
@@robbobcat7286 if you believe what they told you I have some prime real estate 30 miles west of Miami Fl for sale
Send the State a bill for using your land. If they do not pay then take the cameras in lieu of payment. Also, post no trespassing signs around your property. When you catch one of these individuals on your land hold them and call the Sheriff to come and arrest them for trespassing and press charges.
baseball bat to back of the skull usually makes them stay where you put them...til cops find them...
@@kenadams4762 Dig deep. Find.. who?
@@tinkivinki246😂😂 stop it mann you sound like law enforcement trying entrapment some1 to commit a crime , you can only castle doctrine self defense or stand your ground self defense if your in fear of your life or Family
If I found trespassing items, they are either destroyed or annihilated.
Guess that also means Government property is “open property” by that erroneous logic as well.
I'd move them to the edge of my property in a trash bin for "safe" keeping. Not my problem if the garbage truck hauls it away in a week.
In truth, there is no such thing as "government property", it is more correctly public property. We the people ARE the government in the U.S.A. It all begins and ends with the will and desires of We the People. Terms such as federal, state, county, city.... are for jurisdictional authority, not ownership, of public property.
Why not leave the cameras there and charge the government a rental fee for each day they are there? Also could charge them for damaging the tree during the install.
How is a “fenced in field” an “open field”? 🤔
No occupied house on it = open.
@@davidc1961utube Incorrect, no barrier = open, a barrier such as a fence, wall, moat... makes it enclosed.
i wouldn't give a crap whether my field or trees are fenced or not. i own my land and pay taxes on it, so it's private property, which means the government needs a warrant.
good god, what are we coming to when cops can not only creep around your land, but actually install CAMERAS on it?
if the reasoning is that you have no expectation of privacy on your own land, what if you find random people wandering your land? the court has made a rule specifically for cops to get around trespassing, but in doing so the rule sounds like it allows anyone to go onto your land.
what if i was in my back 40 naked and the cops showed up? they would have to arrest me because the RULE says i have no expectation of privacy.
this needs to be challenged from every angle to show how utterly ridiculous it is.
The doctrine even specifies 'enclosed in a structure' - how is a fence not 'enclosing your property in a structure'?
A camera facing an occupied house would seem to require a warrant.
This is creepy! I had a helicopter fly over my little home several times and I got tired of it, The last time they did, I gave them a show. Ever see a old man sun bathing in the nude, They have never been back
Lol 🤔🙄☺️😜
thats exactly what i did out where i live . i gave them a show . they probably jack off to the pics they illegally took of me .
My Eyes!
My Eyes!
You won't believe what I just saw!
I think I'm going blind!
Winning comment!! Thanks for the chuckle!! 🤣🤣🤣
4 MULTI-MILLION CANDLEPOWER LIGHTS AIMED SKYWARD, ON ALL NIGHT...
RPG would have been better
Use the same argument to walk on government property
All property is government property ... just ask them. Or don't pay your property tax and see just how little rights you have.
@@boriscat1999 that's a great point
THE PEOPLE OWN GOVERNMENT PROPERTY!!! YOU ALREADY CAN.
@@falcon127 I'll pass that along to the IRS this year.
You'd have to find the neighbor of the prosecutor or investigator pushing this and convince them to let you mount obvious cameras to really push back like to like. It would likely work.
What if we used open fields doctrine to go on their property as a protest?
They can still protest and make the trespassers' lives miserable.
@Green Tangerine who said we are not the government? Technically the Constitution and bill of rights said we are but in reality we have no standing when it comes to try to fight the govt. It is rare that we can win a case against them.
AS LONG AS YOU DON'T ENTER THEIR HOUSE! YOU CAN INSTALL A CAMERA ON THEIR PROPERTY TO SEE IF THEY ARE ABUSING THEIR CHILDREN!!!
GOVERNMENT OWNS NOTHING!
THE PEOPLE CREATED AND OWN GOVERNMENT..
THEY HOLD NO OWNERSHIP!
falcon127, those who trade their liberties for security deserve neither liberty nor security- sincerely a framer. See I'm a real patriot, and you're just a buster worried about someone else's life.
_"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws."_ Tom Paine.
so, if some kids are walking around on your land you can tell them to leave and that they are trespassing. Why can't you do that to a government official?
Quite unbelievable to the rational American. Thank you for exposing this nonsense!
If there's NO WARRANT signed by a judge you can take down and break the cameras
even with
Three words:
STAND
YOUR
GROUND
Lock and Load citizens!
What makes an incident like this even more egregious, is how agencies like the one in question will freak out if an individual citizen photographs the public officials or their publicly funded buildings.
Right!!
Absolutely.
With a few million dollars in settlements in these cases will make them think twice, about invading the taxpayers property.
No it won't. All that money was stolen from the American taxpayers in the first place. They don't care if they have to pay a billion dollars a week. They simply just raise taxes.
It won't
@@karozans Speaks the truth. A few million dollars of our money being filtered, shuffled, skimmed, and a small part given back to a tiny percent of the people they harm as a matter of course? Bad deal.
That will only be effective against the states which have limited resources. The fedgov has all of our money to use against us.
Lol
It is amazing and disturbing how courts invent new principles and doctrines not mentioned or allowed by the US Constitution. The language machinations used to invent these nonexistent and illegitimate interpretations of the Constitution are ridiculous. In this case, the Constitution makes no exception for any part of a private property. Another example is the abuse of language used to justify private searches without a warrant. Private citizens are not exempted from warrantless search and seizure restraints anywhere in the fourth amendment. No warrant equals no search. Since no private entity ever has the right to search off of its own property, private search equals trespassing and/or breaking and entering and should be prosecuted as such. It is time we put an end to any interpretations of the US Constitution other than original or those which expand protections from abuse by anyone.
Go squirrel hunting, can't help it if a camera gets between you and a squirrel!
that is what I was thinking, but they would still bill you for damage to government property (If they can prove you damaged the camera, and I am sure they have secondary and territary cameras setup to take footage). So you would have to get creative.
Unfortunately if you destroy/take what is considered gov't property you would face a hefty fine and probable jail time. There was a guy that had a tracking device placed on his car when he brought it to a repair shop. they found the device and cops were on him immediately after he tried to get rid of the device because it was govt property even though they were using his vehicle to track him (I do not believe that they had a search warrant when they attached the device). We need to accept that Freedom in America is gone and its time for people to take a stand and tell the Government they serve us not the other way around.
Or cut down the tree that the camera is hanging from, and make sure that it's facing the ground when it falls. Perhaps hanging some kind of shroud around it.
As long as when shooting the ‘squirrel’ you don’t stand in front of the camera. Go out without a gun, map the cameras and their direction. Then from behind the frame of view, shoot the cameras. That way there’s no proof that it was you.
Then if government comes to complain, mention to them that you’ve noticed you’ve had a lot of trespassers lately 😳😂🤪🤦♂️😉.
No jury would convict you if you accidentally shoot the camera that should not be there.
I'd just start cutting down my trees...for firewood!
So you'd give them an unobstructed view? If anything plant MORE trees so that can't see shit.
@@KenMabie No, I'd give myself an unobstructed view & use other measures to mess up their cameras....lasers, mirrors & a host of other things that make viewing harder than it needs to be.
@@KenMabie i believe he meant the tree with thhe camera in it.
@@jeffbourne5620 and ? cutting down the tree doesnt make a clearer view to his home ? my point still stands dipshit
SHOOT THE CAMERAS. THEY NEVER TOLD YOU SO HOW WOULD YOU KNOW WHO OWNED THE CAMERAS.
It isn't the supreme Courts job to interpret the Constitution, it's their job to make sure government institutions are abiding by the Constitution and make sure every individual is protected under said constitution. In other words, stop government over reach but they have become greedy and corrupt.
Convention of States. Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Legally and peacefully curtail the usurpation. This is the government that the founding fathers warned us about.
It doesnt make sense how they have to interpret english anyway. The constitution says what it means clearly.
@@matthewtrauger3683 words and expressions change over time. Look at how the 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech has been reinterpreted into Freedom of Expression. "Protected speech" now includes not just words, but actions. So, regrettably, burning the flag has become protected speech...
They always were that's why George Washington fought to make sure we were independent but were still under attack till this day it's nothing new from Alien (people) not real aliens But illegal foreigners that hate America! With picket signs "we hate U.S.A." But We in America will always have To fight to protect our rights especially our private Land ! And not just physically possibly ,but through reading Learning Laws and petitions and balloting new laws that stop other b.s. laws from being made or oppress the people! I mean its wild But use your devices for not just entebut audio Books and for law books audio too! And go to your Local /state supreme court/and federal supreme court also
There was a garden shop in Barrington Illinois that sold a good deal of hydroponic garden kits grow lights, water pumps etc, the DA tried to subpoena his sales records so that they could use them to identify home marijuana growers, when a judge threw that out of court as too overreaching they got a transformer case from the electric company, cut a hole in it and a piece of pexiglass then they installed a camera and mounted it to a utility pole, in order to photograph the license plate numbers of cars leaving, the establishment, a local reporter spotted the fake and published a picture of it on the front page of the local paper, the garden shops owner, lost all of his customers practically over night, and was out of business within a month.
I hope he sued the living daylights out of the local gov't.
So they lost a good tax revenue source over their determination to catch a few cannabis users?
if you fly over a property you must be at least 500 feet, so by that reason you should be at least 500ft from some ones property.
You can drive down any street. Some yards aren’t 500’. Fly a drone requires you be under 400’ AGL.
However if they hover at 500 ft. the camera they use, if sophisticated enough, could still see whatever you do!
In 2013, Jardines v. Florida showed that the Fourth Amendment is not just about protecting privacy but about protecting from trespass.
I have a Fourth Amendment case before the Tenth Circuit set for oral argument Nov 18, 2020
( also address a First Amendment issue)
Essentially, the government only has a right to use your property in the same way any other private person can. E.g., approach your house in attempt to speak with you, etc.
You certainly would not expect any other visitor to b installing cameras in your trees without your permission.
"I have a Fourth Amendment case before the Tenth Circuit set for oral argument Nov 18, 2020" So, are there any updates to your Nov 18, 2020 case?
@@GFlCh Tenth Circuit affirmed the ridiculous "no search" finding.
Although one of the three judge panel dissented and said he would have reverse.
Did CERTIORARI to SCOTUS but was DENIED. (99% of cases are denied)
If I found the cameras they would have been destroyed.
Sounds like the death rattle of liberty dying.
I believe that a question that is just as important is that can you wonder around your property and remove and destroy any cameras and other devices that were placed there without your permission.
I think another important question is that if your property is clearly and obviously marked as "NO TRESPASSING" is it legal for you to detain and/or shoot trespassers who refuse to leave and stay off your property. In Texas you have to warn people who are trespassing that they are trespassing and order them to remove themselves from your property first and if they refuse to leave you can physically remove them or have the arrested and if the return you can shoot them.
Take care and be prepared. Cops have friends and they all shoot back.
@@finngamesknudson1457
In my part of Texas we have law enforcement officers, not cops. That is because just about everybody has guns and they are not afraid to use them and the police and politicians know that when the shooting starts, there are going to be a lot more of us shooting at them than there will be them shooting at us. That is how you keep a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
@@oldtimefarmboy617 - So you had already prepared. Guess my advice is not for you.
Your community is a great example of “if you want peace, prepare for war”. Everyone understands and no one starts trouble.
I would suddenly have an urge to prune the trees.
Second thing, the cameras would be mysteriously experience radio frequency jamming.
Give the state a trespass warning. If they enter and put something on your property, whatever they left is yours. Sounds like a gift to me.
The first rule of a police state is that the police can do anything that they like.
I’ll tell ya this if I ever see a camera on my property no matter who did it I would take pleasure in using them for target practice
The guy walked right in front of my target ! didn't see him until my finger already pulled the trigger !
If the government puts cameras on my property do those cameras become my property?
yes just don't let the camera see you take them down...then put them up at closest police station..or cops house...
Use those cameras as target practice
And any trespassers as well.
Or moon them.
It should be illegal to film a house under surveyance on property without a warrant..
It is illigal
@@dwighttrenholm3203 apparently it's not if under Open Lands Act. US Fish and Wildlife Dept. Can go on any property foro surveillance of any laws being broke under any statue regulating game and wildlife, like poaching. Even though a landowner can hunt or shoot any animal on its property. I think he can anyways .
Govt always crossing lines breaking rules. Open fields doctrine needs to end OR cameras can go anywhere 4 any reason including illegal surveillance. Excellent analysis!
That's when you cut down the tree the game camera is mounted too. If you are confronted about it say "I did not know there was a game camera on the tree when I went to cut it down".
If they could be blind , so can you ...
So I guess in the government’s eyes I can go onto the senator’s or governors or even a Supreme Court justice property and set up cameras?
Sounds reasonable
It should be mandated. After all, isn't it one way to hold these inbred fuckers accountable, with the threat of surveillance over their criminal activities by the public they're supposed to serve and who presumably pay their salaries?
I don't care whats the interpretation of the supreme court or their opinion, the peoples court is the common law court make a claim for trespass on your property with a trial by jury and get compensate for such trespass not one more word, not a less word..
No Trespass sign up and no warrant = hot lead.
Possession is 9/10ths the law. They can place whatever they want to place on my property then it will become my property...
But... only if you know it is there.
@@robert5 I have cameras set up everywhere on my property. I see things that people wish I didn’t see. Just ask the individual that stole my utility trailer and attempt to break in why he was arrested in under 24 hours and all of my stuff was recovered 🤣
Thank you IJ I will continue to donate! The government over reach is absolutely sickening.
No one (including government agents) should be allowed to enter upon your property without your permission, or a search warrant.
I don't think any of the amendments protects me like I think it does.
Anyone can understand that the constitution says what it means, and means what it says. It's not debatable. Anyone who passed the 8th grade saw the United States constitution at least once. You should definitely pick that up on audible or whatever ebook site you have. Brush up on the amendments, they say what they mean, and mean what they say. The first 9 amendments are our rights defined specifically by the constitution. We also have other rights not specified in the constitution. Such as statutory, human, as well as rights defined by the declaration of independence. People died for those rights people.
If I know your putting up cameras. My question would be how many cameras are you willing to lose.
Isn’t there also a question of how many installers they are willing to lose?
Cameras in trees, make good targets.
for the 2 Attorneys, should read Barron's law , possibly wex law. 18 title U.S.C LAW 2510 {4] states Federal and state law prohibits the unauthorized use or possession of wiretap devices . and pointing that at your tenant is also a major problem . i was reading a workmans comp case, the insurance company had video taped a claimant , they were caught .also watching a person or persons in there house or rental is absolutely illegal . this happen in telford tennessee because they were caught . Do you want to know why they did it, it came from upstate new york hearsay
These are probably electronic cameras which can easily be jammed with a $29 product straight off EBay...
buckshot 49cent...
Now the property owner has to waste money in court fees, and a lawyer because they where spied on. BS.
Here is a proposed simple solution.. Instead of posting only "Private Property" and "No Trespassing" Signs. Post "Edge of Expected Curtilage" Signs as well. to establish your predetermined Expectation of Privacy.. Simple Work around... Just saying..
my businesses are walled and there are not open to public signs at every entrance...electronic keys given to employees and club members...can't call them customers anymore...for reason, cops claimed they could come and go as they pleased...like any customer could...the 5600 volt fence seems to have worked too....
The state of Tennessee is looking for a civil asset forfeiture on this one.
The only people that can come on property marked no trespassing are game wardens. If they put up cameras for the benefit of another agency they are then acting as agents of the other agency and have lost their right to be there. Open fields only applies to land with no trespassing signs. In many states if you have row crops that area is protected as if no trespassing signs are present. Any evidence gained should be thrown out as it was obtained as a result of the intentional commission of a crime. Also the cameras may be illegal under privacy laws where you cannot photograph someone without their consent while on private property. You can film them all you want from public property. Since the cameras were pointed at a residence the intent was clearly to film people.
HR 6666 finished it off, the gov has been at war with the populace for a longtime. All deputies in Roxboro NC defended all hunting violations.
I don't think it's passed yet. Hopefully the Republicans win enough House seats to prevent this seemingly benign bill from passing and becoming law.
"Open fields" only applies to peaceful travel through the area. Any agent of the government who is doing anything beyond peacefull traveling through and is loitering or conducting business without a warrant on ones property is what is known as a "trespasser". Armed tresspassers, as agents typically are, are what is known as "fair game" or "lethal threat" and may be dealt with accordingly.
My copy of the 4A says "....no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.....particularly describing the place to be searched.....".
1. Get one of those LED camera detectors and look through the eyepiece
2. Find all the cameras
3. Put up "No trespassing" signs in front of every camera 2 inches from the lens. Do NOT spray paint them or you can be charged with vandalism.
3. Now the cameras don't work. Enjoy your private property you paid for
Blatant trespassing....
Young, smart attorneys, thank you for justice.
Thank you senior attorneys, too who help those in need of justice.
So, my question is: May I find such cameras placed on my property, without my authorization, and then confiscate, and maybe sell them?
In selling them you acknowledge that they have value. If you destructively remove them from your tree and dispose of them in the trash, you just cleaned up litter from your property.
Research land patents:..
Drones in the airspace above my property= free skeets...
Patented land includes the airspace above said land,and earth and mineral rights below said land...
The wedge of earth to its core, and above it to the boundary of space. Unless the government want some part of that...
You joke, but this is coming. They will be flying drones over our homes or use high resolution live feed satelites to track us all the time, when we don't just do it for them with our "smart" phones - which literally relay information like "riding in car" and "going up stairs" to the service provider, along with detailed coordinates.
@@furtim1 Dude, you need to get back on your meds. Seriously.
@@furtim1 not joking, a load of buckshot will bring em down...
@@kenhorsey9050 Yeah. See, I don't believe people will do that. People aren't inclined to risk imprisonment for privacy. We let the national government mandate GPS transmitters in all automobiles. We let them put license plates on our cars. We let them only allow us to drive cars with their permission. We allowed them to socialize and regulate like hell so many industries and small aspects of life, you can't even read all the laws, precedents, treaties, codes, decisions, and regulations you are to obey if you dedicated your entire lifetime to the goal (much less understand them). We let them surveil all internet, email, text, and phone calls. We let them license a majority of all jobs. We let them take a higher share of our income/production than the most tyrannized serf's of the middle ages. The list goes on and on and on.
We are spineless. If we are even allowed to own shotguns in 25 years, we won't be using them to take out drones. The thought of even questioning the use of that level of surveillance will be unthinkable.
Very upsetting and frustrating to hear about such unconstitutional criminal behavior by our government.
who is running the government right now..?..Someone bent on total control...well ,who is that? hint he's been there 4 years now...
@@kenadams4762 , I don’t know what you’re getting at. Donald Trump took over the administration and all of this crap going on long before he took office. So what are you talking about
Perhaps the property owner should put up a “no fishing” sign.
I have found several vehicles parked on my property in the past. They may have driven them onto the property but they had to be towed off of it. High repair bills to illegally fish a small pond stopped it rather quickly.
Free cameras sweet!
That was a nice tree. It's a shame I lost it in a boating accident.
Pull that shit at my home at your own peril.
Post enter under 'contract notices'. Anyone entering this property assumes a contract by the act of entering. These are the terms...
Then sue them as individuals under the contract. Include storage of 'lost property' etc.
After all you can't just walk into Disney land without paying.
The government has the authority to install a camera (no closer than) 3 feet from every window and door of a private residence. It is illegal for a resident to remove or tamper with a camera installed on private property. According to the “Open Field” doctrine.
Can you invite a camera professional to assist you in making a video on how these cameras function, how they are powered and how the signal is transmitted and at what distance? This could assist in protecting other individuals.
That would be Good information
@Thomas Wayne actually they make a lot of cell cams now that will send pics to your phone instantly
@@Yfzmarine then put something that makes motion in front of them so they send data every time the wind blows.
Charge them for storage of the camera. 100k per month.
Thank you for highlighting this issue!
"Searching for evidence of a crime" by placing cameras up on private property?Sounds like an Assertion of Guilt WITHOUT PC....
Does the IJ have the funding to follow this to the SCOTUS? This is really important and needs to be fixed.
If the OPEN FIELDS DOCTRINE allows access then where does 'trespass' and 'criminal trespass' which are commonly prosecuted come in? Wouldn't the latter two be moot? As far as over flying peoperty, viewing same from public, say, from a sidewalk, hill or mountain top, these are NOT the same as TRESPASSING physically. There is a clear difference.
Thank you for your postings. Greetings from Indianapolis Indiana.
A friend of mine and his associates Northern California were being monitored through that doctrine, The Fuzz laying in the bushes parabolic dishes aimed at the house and garage which was attached to the house, they checked surrounding areas and found patches of grass push down on the ground silhouette of a person they went and purchased itching powder about a pound of it over to the area even though they thought there might be cameras in the trees, they put the stuff all over the perimeter well they came back took up their positions to their surprise they were itching their ass off, , by the way hey stalled their own cameras to monitor The surroundings. thought I’d share this.
Isn't that kinda like invasion of privacy ??
4th amendment? What about the 3rd? The camera is an agent of the state.
Thanks guys. Keep it up
It is quite illegal for the government to surveil you on your property like that. The problem is that the government gets to interpret what's constitutional and the people just fall in line.
SHALL NOT be infringed, what did they mean by saying that though?
Where does trespass law come into property intrusion?
Keep Pressing!
Who are these judges that are making these rulings? These principles need to be tested on their real property.
what do you mean there was a camera in that tree i cut down? that's a darn shame
The wildlife officers were probably investigating reports of poaching and until some case law changes it the open field doctrine is still a reality that can be utilized by law enforcement. I would really like to see how this went in court with a follow-up video.
Is it poaching if it is in your private property?
@@Section31HQ No, I was referring to non-property owning people intruding upon the property for the purpose of taking wildlife unlawfully.
Open fields means just that. Closed in with fencing is definitely not opened fields. Especially with legible no trespassing signs set in place. In such cases the authorities are not above the law. They are required by law to get a search warrant to enter your private property. They are also supposed to make this known to the owner prior to entering.This is to protect all persons. Sense there are even legal signs that read: This is private property, no trespassing allowed. Violators will be shot on sight. For this very reason police have been shot, and killed for illegally going over fences with no trespassing signs because they were too far away for the owner to identify them as police in their blue uniform, and mistook them for criminal trespassers there to do harm to them, and their families.
The government has a vested interest in granting exceptions to the law to law enforcement. Some exceptions make sense, some don't. This exception to the trespass laws makes no sense.
I've seen another video where cops were saying - and got a court to agree - that using a drone to photograph the part of a yard not visible any other way was a valid use of "you can't trespass the eye". The cameras in the cases in this video are being posted ON private property to record on private property. Once the officers are on private property, they should be subject to the trespass laws, *just like anyone else* . If they leave "tangible" property behind, that property should legitimately belong to the property owner as "found" property.
So the question begs: If a govt agent enters your land on the basis of open fields jurisprudence then breaks a leg can they sue the land owner? Logic would seem to suggest that the agent could not, but I am probably wrong.
They shoot horse's with broken legs.....they are wild and dangerous animals treat them accordingly.....
@@rairai4020 - let the hogs hide the evidence
I'd be thanking the Tenn feds for putting up really neat targets for me to shoot at. Nothing says marksmanship if you can hit an 8 inch target from 200 yds.
I can simplify all this controversy. If someone...including law-enforcement...walks onto "any" part of private property...and...gets hurt or even killed...completely by accident...the owner of that property can be held liable...can be sued...and will most likely lose! This can happen even when it involves "trespassers." Ofc I'm no lawyer...but because of the liability issue...99% of land owners don't allow anyone on their property unsupervised or without a written contract freeing them of any liability. I own a small treecare company...and without a contract...if I or my help were to be hurt or killed...the homeowners insurance would be liable. So I don't see how law-enforcement can enter and put up cameras...anytime they feel like it...without a warrant. Should something happen to them...the property owner would be liable.
Signage indicating enter at your own risk ....telling local law enforcement about it ..should cover it , but you may need to check with your states laws and with a lawyer ... food for thought....