Police allowed to install cameras on private property without warrant

[netsecurity]

Warrantless video surveillance - OK

If they can sneak cameras on private property for something as minor as pot WITHOUT A WARRANT, then doesn't that mean they could basically spy on anyone at any time, legally?

Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras | Politics and Law - CNET News

 

[singlestacksig]

Game wardens have been doing this for years..

 

[IndyDave1776]

Trespassing is legal if one happens to posses a badge? Interesting. First, it would seem to be a violation of property rights. Second, watching from the sidelines, it does little to encourage trust in law enforcement as it appears that the opportunity to scream 'Gotcha!' is more important that maintaining public trust, in this case by respecting property rights. Third, in the words of Justice Louis Brandeis, “The makers of the Constitution conferred the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by all civilized men—the right to be let alone.” Justice Felix Frankfurter would later resurrect this thought some twenty years later in another opinion.

The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Given that trespassing is illegal in most states, and that using a person's own property without warrant as a surveillance tool could reasonably be considered a partial seizure, even if it is only one tree, post, or other attribute used as a camera stand, I fail to see where this is acceptable.

 

[iwearcowboyboots]

Trespassing is legal if one happens to posses a badge? Interesting. First, it would seem to be a violation of property rights. Second, watching from the sidelines, it does little to encourage trust in law enforcement as it appears that the opportunity to scream 'Gotcha!' is more important that maintaining public trust, in this case by respecting property rights. Third, in the words of Justice Louis Brandeis, “The makers of the Constitution conferred the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by all civilized men—the right to be let alone.” Justice Felix Frankfurter would later resurrect this thought some twenty years later in another opinion.

The Fourth Amendment states:



Given that trespassing is illegal in most states, and that using a person's own property without warrant as a surveillance tool could reasonably be considered a partial seizure, even if it is only one tree, post, or other attribute used as a camera stand, I fail to see where this is acceptable.

Don't worry. I'm sure the new batch of elected officials we help usher in next week will rectify this.

 

[steveh_131]

I sure hope we see some jury nullification.

This is ridiculous.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Don't worry. I'm sure the new batch of elected officials we help usher in next week will rectify this.

I am sure they will!

 

[singlestacksig]

trespass law does not apply to LEO while doing an official act..
see Indiana code.
open fields have long been considered outside of privacy areas..

 

[IndyDave1776]

trespass law does not apply to LEO while doing an official act..
see Indiana code.
open fields have long been considered outside of privacy areas..

Indiana Code 35-43-2

No mention that I can find. Even if it did, IC doesn't trump 4A.

Now, how do you defend an 'official act' if the LEO walks right past a 'No Trespassing' sign which openly denies entry with no warrant, past habits notwithstanding (unless you believe that wrong actions have some time limit after which they become acceptable like teachers and professors receiving tenure regardless of how good or bad they are at their jobs).

IC 35-43-2-2
Criminal trespass
Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;

 

[singlestacksig]

Indiana Code 35-43-2

No mention that I can find. Even if it did, IC doesn't trump 4A.

Now, how do you defend an 'official act' if the LEO walks right past a 'No Trespassing' sign which openly denies entry with no warrant, past habits notwithstanding (unless you believe that wrong actions have some time limit after which they become acceptable like teachers and professors receiving tenure regardless of how good or bad they are at their jobs).

read the whole thing..;
Criminal trespass
Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;
(2) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent;
(3) accompanies another person in a vehicle, with knowledge that the other person knowingly or intentionally is exerting unauthorized control over the vehicle;
(4) knowingly or intentionally interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without the person's consent;
(5) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the dwelling of another person without the person's consent; or
(6) knowingly or intentionally:
(A) travels by train without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent; and


(B) rides on the outside of a train or inside a passenger car, locomotive, or freight car, including a boxcar, flatbed, or container without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent;
commits criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if it is committed on a scientific research facility, on school property, or on a school bus or the person has a prior unrelated conviction for an offense under this section concerning the same property.
(b) A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) of this section when the person has been denied entry by means of:
(1) personal communication, oral or written; or
(2) posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public.
(c) Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply to the following:
(1) A passenger on a train.
(2) An employee of a railroad carrier while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(3) A law enforcement officer, firefighter, or emergency response personnel while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(4) A person going on railroad property in an emergency to rescue a person or animal from harm's way or to remove an object that the person reasonably believes poses an imminent threat to life or limb.
(5) A person on the station grounds or in the depot of a railroad carrier:
(A) as a passenger; or
(B) for the purpose of transacting lawful business.
(6) A:
(A) person; or
(B) person's:
(i) family member;
(ii) invitee;
(iii) employee;
(iv) agent; or
(v) independent contractor;
going on a railroad's right-of-way for the purpose of crossing at a private crossing site approved by the railroad carrier to obtain access to land that the person owns, leases, or operates.
(7) A person having written permission from the railroad carrier to go on specified railroad property.
(8) A representative of the Indiana department of transportation while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(9) A representative of the federal Railroad Administration while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(10) A representative of the National Transportation Safety Board while engaged in the performance of official duties.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.3. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.43; P.L.151-1989, SEC.12; P.L.242-1993, SEC.2; P.L.164-1993, SEC.11; P.L.1-1994, SEC.168; P.L.259-1999, SEC.3.

 

[singlestacksig]

Indiana Code 35-43-2

No mention that I can find. Even if it did, IC doesn't trump 4A.

Now, how do you defend an 'official act' if the LEO walks right past a 'No Trespassing' sign which openly denies entry with no warrant, past habits notwithstanding (unless you believe that wrong actions have some time limit after which they become acceptable like teachers and professors receiving tenure regardless of how good or bad they are at their jobs).

also the 4th does not mention open fields.. It specifically mentions persons, houses, & papers.. A field is not a new concept so there is a reason they did not mention it..

 

[IndyDave1776]

read the whole thing..;
Criminal trespass
Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;
(2) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent;
(3) accompanies another person in a vehicle, with knowledge that the other person knowingly or intentionally is exerting unauthorized control over the vehicle;
(4) knowingly or intentionally interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without the person's consent;
(5) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the dwelling of another person without the person's consent; or
(6) knowingly or intentionally:
(A) travels by train without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent; and


(B) rides on the outside of a train or inside a passenger car, locomotive, or freight car, including a boxcar, flatbed, or container without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent;
commits criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if it is committed on a scientific research facility, on school property, or on a school bus or the person has a prior unrelated conviction for an offense under this section concerning the same property.
(b) A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) of this section when the person has been denied entry by means of:
(1) personal communication, oral or written; or
(2) posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public.
(c) Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply to the following:
(1) A passenger on a train.
(2) An employee of a railroad carrier while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(3) A law enforcement officer, firefighter, or emergency response personnel while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(4) A person going on railroad property in an emergency to rescue a person or animal from harm's way or to remove an object that the person reasonably believes poses an imminent threat to life or limb.
(5) A person on the station grounds or in the depot of a railroad carrier:
(A) as a passenger; or
(B) for the purpose of transacting lawful business.
(6) A:
(A) person; or
(B) person's:
(i) family member;
(ii) invitee;
(iii) employee;
(iv) agent; or
(v) independent contractor;
going on a railroad's right-of-way for the purpose of crossing at a private crossing site approved by the railroad carrier to obtain access to land that the person owns, leases, or operates.
(7) A person having written permission from the railroad carrier to go on specified railroad property.
(8) A representative of the Indiana department of transportation while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(9) A representative of the federal Railroad Administration while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(10) A representative of the National Transportation Safety Board while engaged in the performance of official duties.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.3. Amended by Acts 1977,
P.L.340, SEC.43; P.L.151-1989, SEC.12; P.L.242-1993, SEC.2; P.L.164-1993, SEC.11; P.L.1-1994, SEC.168; P.L.259-1999, SEC.3.

Did you by chance notice that 3/4 of that deals specifically with railroads? Given that most of us do not own railroads, I fail to see the relevance.

 

[singlestacksig]

Did you by chance notice that 3/4 of that deals specifically with railroads? Given that most of us do not own railroads, I fail to see the relevance.

(c) Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply to the following:

(3) A law enforcement officer, firefighter, or emergency response personnel while engaged in the performance of official duties.


subsection (a) is;
(a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;
(2) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent;

 

[IndyDave1776]

(c) Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply to the following:

(3) A law enforcement officer, firefighter, or emergency response personnel while engaged in the performance of official duties.


subsection (a) is;
(a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;
(2) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent;

I see your point. I didn't see it hidden among the railroad issues. Gives a whole new meaning to getting railroaded!

Back to the more important point--just because this notion that invading one's property is acceptable so long as it is not the immediate area around the house has been tolerated for some time, how does that make it right, especially when using private property against it's owner even in such a humble application as commandeering its use as a camera stand?

I do not consider acceptance by the courts to be a valid argument. After all, these are the same people who do not understand the phrase 'shall not be infringed' and consider highway robbery to be perfectly legal so long as done by law enforcement officers.

 

[singlestacksig]

most of the "shall not be infringed" rights are either written in the constitution, an other document in history prior, or recognized by courts in history..
The concept of warrent needed for a search has seldom included an open field..
this is why it is a good idea to put a fence up if you want privacy..

 

[HoughMade]

Before we get too exercised, let's just remember that this is one trial court judge and it does not have much in the way of precedential value. Hopefully, an appellate court will correct this. I'm going to pull this case and see just exactly what the judge said to see if there is anything here that is not accurately reported.

 

[singlestacksig]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5333983688376209538&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

 

[IndyDave1776]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5333983688376209538&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

You will notice that this does not in any way address the installation of any hardware not authorized by the property owner.

 

[singlestacksig]

You will notice that this does not in any way address the installation of any hardware not authorized by the property owner.

yeah, that is the aurgument the lawyer should have made in this case.. can the government USE one's property with out a warrent.. not does trespass apply..

 

[IndyDave1776]

yeah, that is the aurgument the lawyer should have made in this case.. can the government USE one's property with out a warrent.. not does trespass apply..

Even if we accept the unauthorized use of private property as a satisfactory argument, we are still left with the trespass issue. I can buy into a plain sight argument, but not if anyone, LEO or otherwise, has to enter the property to see anything of concern. There is a big difference between seeing MJ planted in the corn as one drives down the road and having to trudge through the woods and cross the creek to find anything questionable. If they can justify entering private property, they can justify having a warrant issued.

 

[singlestacksig]

there is no trespass issue, the trespass law does not apply to the state.
that has been a common law since long before 1776 ..