Government Cameras Hidden on Private Property? Welcome to Open Fields

[L84Cabo]

Anyone ever heard of the SCOTUS doctrine of "Open Fields" before? Because it's pretty unsettling.

https://www.agweb.com/article/government-cameras-hidden-private-property-welcome-open-fields

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.

Can the government place cameras and monitoring equipment on a private citizen's land at will, or conduct surveillance and stakeouts on private land, without probable cause or a search warrant? Indeed, according to the U.S. Supreme Court's (SCOTUS) interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Welcome to Open Fields.

Read More

 

[sobo]

Well, that's disconcerting...

 

[TTSX]

Oh good. More being watched. I love being watched

 

[Alexx1401]

Since I have read nothing of this anywhere else? who knows. Did not feel like taking up time searching for it but, if it is happening it all comes back to something I have said for a long time. "Laws" and "Rights" really mean nothing. It is up to someone with a black robe who tells you what they mean. If a black robe tells you they are not for you, you have nothing. Until you get a black robe who out ranks first black robe to change the first one. 2A is a prime example of this. I have long been a "2A purist". I believe any US Citizen who wants to live according to the laws of the country should have the "right" to a gun. Most gun owners do not believe this. They think they have a right but, everyone else has a privilege. This only changes when some new rule or law infringes on them. Problem is they already long ago made it clear they do not believe 2A is a right. So of course the rest of the "rights" in the Constitution are the same. Some black robe can at any time tell you they are not actually rights. Voters have for decades said they are fine with this.

 

[bigbearbear]

Awww......how nice, I feel so safe now knowing that big bro is watching over me, or at me depending on where they've place those cameras.

 

[arakboss]

Anyone ever heard of the SCOTUS doctrine of "Open Fields" before? Because it's pretty unsettling.

https://www.agweb.com/article/government-cameras-hidden-private-property-welcome-open-fields

Scary stuff. I am guessing this applies to county/city code enforcement, building inspectors, deq, epa, batf, etc.

I am starting to think Government is not our friend.

 

[coop44]

I would have put on a show for them. Dancing naked, clown masks, watermelon sex. I hope they have good vision coverage.

 

[Alexx1401]

I would have put on a show for them. Dancing naked, clown masks, watermelon sex. I hope they have good vision coverage.

LOL, might take some doing but I would if at all possible take a crap on the damn thing. Then wait to see if they came to me to complain about it. Would also want to set up a camera of my own to watch as the workers show up to retrieve the thing

 

[Vendor Hidden]

Hollingsworth v. Tenn. Wildlife Res. Agency, 423 F. Supp. 3d 521 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Hollingsworth v. Tenn. Wildlife Res. Agency, 423 F. Supp. 3d 521, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

 

[twa2471]

Just find them with night vision which will pick up the infrared broadcaster signature and sneak up on it out of it's field of view and blast it with a round or 2 of 3 1/2" buckshot.

Gezzz Mr Black Robe,,,honestly,,,I thought it was a porcupine gnawing on my trees ! Guess I'd better get my glass's prescription checked ?

At least that's what I did to one I found on my property. Wasn't a Government one, but what is someone going to say when your land is legally posted?
BUSTED !

 

[Oregonhunter5]

What crime did he commit

 

[The Heretic]

I recall a short article about someone else finding a trail cam on his property, and the state demanding the cam back, but I don't recall anything about the doctrine.

I have not read the full article yet, but I would think that the doctrine could not support blocking the view of the cam, or exposing one's genitals to the cam, or otherwise playing havoc with the cam as long as the cam itself is not tampered with or removed by the property owner.

 

[Hemlock]

I say squirrels build nests in unusual places. And then set up your own camera!

 

[The Heretic]

I say squirrels build nests in unusual places. And then set up your own camera!

Mud happens

 

[Enkidu556]

What?!!!? bubblegum that!! The fourth amendment, when written, could not have foreseen the much, much later invention of hidden cameras that could capture video and photos, and then the transmit them. I think that the fourth needs a slight upgrade in it's verbiage in order to cover this loophole. Private property is just that, private. This is criminal......

 

[ma96782]

Perhaps......the roots of "open fields" are in the Prohibition Era? You know, bootleg production? Whatever.....

So, on the other side.....
Say that someone that you claim not to know and/or don't really know......has set up an illegal still on your property (say a field camp site). Rrrrright.....and upon discovery of the still on your property, the Govt moves to seize your property.

As the property owner.....aren't you responsible for what goes on it? Do you get to claim that you didn't know because your property was not entirely fenced and the suspect entered the property though the open field?

Aloha, Mark

 

[ma96782]

Technology and the Constitution.

On sort of the same thinking/trend.....
OK.....now a days we have airplanes and surveillance drones and satellites.

So....say that a suspected serial killer has a large property. The body is thought to be buried on his ranch. Say that without a warrant, the Govt did a "fly over". Hummmm......say that a recent possible burial site was discovered? That piece of the investigation was key to getting a Search Warrant. So, should the Govt surveillance (fly over) be admissible evidence? Or will the fly over and all of the subsequent investigation/evidence be considered "fruits of the poisonous tree"?

Mind you that a direct/over head fly over of a property is not always necessary now a days. Rrrright....cameras can look sideways too.

Aloha, Mark

PS....and what about on the ground level....the use of an extra hi-powered telephoto lens from an adjacent property?

Does a suspect have an expectation of privacy......from what would/could NOT be normally be seen by the naked eye?

 

[coop44]

I can see a lot of issues at work here. When outside, even on your own land, are you in "plain sight? Do you even have an "expectation of privacy"? Questions for greater legal minds than mine.

 

[The Heretic]

A fly over is possibly allowable and different because:

1) Airspace is not owned by the landowner.

2) What can be seen from outside the land is a "public view".

That is quite different from a gov agency actually setting foot on your property, surreptitiously planting cameras, and then to top that off, raiding your home after you take the camera. If a non gov entity, say a private citizen who did not have legal access to the property planted a camera in that fashion, then it would be considered trespass and probably an invasion of privacy.

 

[thuty_thuty]

Open-fields doctrine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org