- Messages
- 2,926
- Reactions
- 5,519
- Thread Starter
- #21
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I guess I should have elaborated. I understand probable cause. My question is, who says hearing gunshots coming from a rural property, where it is not illegal to discharge a firearm, in and of itself constitutes probable cause?
by your posted location, you are in OregonSays who?
Reminds me of this video. I do get the distinct feeling that it is only telling that dude's side. Reading between the lines sounds like they were trying to catch him poaching? No clue but kinda creepy.Game camera's. If you see "someone" put up electronics? Go back and take them down and trash them. Let them see how many they want to buy.
The Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the drug conviction was upheld. In that ruling, they found that the signage (prohibiting hunting, but nothing else) did not prevent law enforcement from entering.BUT, But, but........
OR is pro-MJ. So, I'd expect that outcome.
Aloha, Mark
PS........
View attachment 1811755
Not really speaking ONLY about the case of State vs Dixson.A person who wishes to preserve a constitutionally protected privacy interest in land outside the curtilage must manifest an intention to exclude the public by erecting barriers to entry, such as fences, or by posting signs. This rule will not unduly hamper law enforcement officers in their attempts to curtail the manufacture of and trafficking in illegal drugs, because it does not require investigating officers to draw any deduction other than that required of the general public: if land is fenced, posted or otherwise closed off, one does not enter it without permission or, in the officers' situation, permission or a warrant.