Open Fields Doctrine -- Ever Heard Of It?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Ingomike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    28,166
    113
    North Central
    I kind of get the doctrine of "open fields" that what you do outside may be seen by all, including government. But I fail to understand where the authority to come on private property and place surveillance equipment comes into it.
     

    SmileDocHill

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    61   0   0
    Mar 26, 2009
    6,159
    113
    Westfield
    I didn't do a detailed read sot his may have been answered. Even if you accept the argument of it being OK to be surveilled on your own land, how do they get past the good old fashion trespassing that was required to put the cameras there to begin with?
     

    2A_Tom

    Crotchety old member!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 27, 2010
    25,979
    113
    NWI
    How would this apply to say, DEA aircraft flying over your property looking for marijuana growing operations? Is there any difference?

    Using airspace above your land is not trespassing.

    I suppose if the cameras were placed by drones that never landed it would be OK.
     

    Ingomike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    28,166
    113
    North Central
    I kind of get the doctrine of "open fields" that what you do outside may be seen by all, including government. But I fail to understand where the authority to come on private property and place surveillance equipment comes into it.

    I didn't do a detailed read sot his may have been answered. Even if you accept the argument of it being OK to be surveilled on your own land, how do they get past the good old fashion trespassing that was required to put the cameras there to begin with?

    So here is how we got here. Those little SCOTUS cases that no one even notices build up over the years.

    https://uscivilliberties.org/cases/3925-hester-v-united-states-265-us-445-1924.html

    https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-oliver-v-united-states


    Another breach of civil liberties lost in the failed war on drugs...
     

    Cameramonkey

    www.thechosen.tv
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    May 12, 2013
    31,686
    77
    Camby area
    I wonder how a trail cam holds up to a shotgun blast?
    Instead, it sure would be a shame if you decided to cut down a few of your trees, if you know what I mean. Even more tragic if they happened to fall the direction the camera was pointed, ruining it. :dunno: I'd probably leave the camera next to the stump. (or whats left of it) I'd hate to be accused of stealing .gov property. (you know some redneck scoping your land for hunting isnt installing cell uplinked trail cams)
     

    ziggy

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 1, 2013
    413
    28
    Fort Wayne area
    It looks to me like Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution needs to be amended. It presently mirrors the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. How about we ask all of our state reps. and senators to support an amendment to include "open fields, and open spaces up to the boundaries of the private ownership of land, buildings, and waters"?
    What freedom-loving person would oppose that?
     

    Ingomike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    28,166
    113
    North Central
    It looks to me like Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution needs to be amended. It presently mirrors the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. How about we ask all of our state reps. and senators to support an amendment to include "open fields, and open spaces up to the boundaries of the private ownership of land, buildings, and waters"?
    What freedom-loving person would oppose that?

    You make an enormous assumption that the majority is freedom loving and C-19 has proven that wrong...
     

    fullmetaljesus

    Probably smoking a cigar.
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    5,849
    149
    Indy
    It's interesting to me that the guy got charged for baiting birds. So was it maybe more of a sting or open investigation vs random camera placement?

    If these were in fact random and they are basically performing warrantless searches then it's a problem.


    Regardless of my feelings about the doctrine. I feel we are missing a lot of details here.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,048
    77
    Southside Indy
    It's interesting to me that the guy got charged for baiting birds. So was it maybe more of a sting or open investigation vs random camera placement?

    If these were in fact random and they are basically performing warrantless searches then it's a problem.


    Regardless of my feelings about the doctrine. I feel we are missing a lot of details here.
    If I read the article right, it was only one of the guys that was caught baiting. The other one was completely random I think.
     
    Rating - 100%
    28   0   0
    Oct 3, 2008
    4,184
    149
    On a hill in Perry C
    If I read the article right, it was only one of the guys that was caught baiting. The other one was completely random I think.

    One had his son and a bunch of his friends get caught baiting, the other the landowner himself got caught. The cameras were placed afterward if I read it correctly. No doubt somebody said something to somebody and that got them ratted out. So now the fish cops think they can catch them again is what I'm thinking.

    Not saying it's right by any stretch of the imagination but the moral of the story: If you caught once, mind your p's and q's cause they're going to be watching you.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,048
    77
    Southside Indy
    One had his son and a bunch of his friends get caught baiting, the other the landowner himself got caught. The cameras were placed afterward if I read it correctly. No doubt somebody said something to somebody and that got them ratted out. So now the fish cops think they can catch them again is what I'm thinking.

    Not saying it's right by any stretch of the imagination but the moral of the story: If you caught once, mind your p's and q's cause they're going to be watching you.

    Thanks John! I misread it then. I've been doing that a lot today (with work stuff earlier)! :):
     

    indyjohn

    PATRIOT
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    77   0   0
    Dec 26, 2010
    7,505
    77
    In the trees
    The entire concept of government agents accessing my land without my permission or knowledge for the purpose of observing and recording my activities is unbelievable to me. Unless, I suppose, they had suspicion I was engaging in illegal activities. It doesn't strike me to be categorically any different from a wiretap (which you have to obtain a court order to perform, right?). If the placing of trailcams on my land is done without cause, then I think it is trespassing. Period.

    It seems the two circumstances depicted in the article have one thing in common - both were previously found to be engaging in illegal activities, which I have a very strong opinion about. If you are known to have willfully broken the law in the past, you are defacto predisposed to break it again, so you reap what you sow. But on the flip side I have to ask "Don't these 'fish police' have better things to do than snoop on bird baiters?" I don't hunt birds so I don't know if this is sinister enough to merit this amount of taxpayer money spent to catch the perps if they do it again. Is it worse than exceeding the speed limit?
     
    Top Bottom