Police state judge OKs surveillance cameras on private, posted land without warrant.

[Bigfoot]

The property was wooded, posted, fenced, gated and locked. Looks like they had a problem with that pesky "probable cause supported by oath or affirmation" so screw it. Judge apparently doesn't understand the legal definition of "reasonable expectation of privacy" or he doesn't care.

Long article:

Federal Judge OKs Installation of Surveillance Cameras Without a Warrant

Two defendants in the case, Manuel Mendoza and Marco Magana of Green Bay, Wis., have been charged with federal drug crimes after DEA agent Steven Curran claimed to have discovered more than 1,000 marijuana plants grown on the property, and face possible life imprisonment and fines of up to $10 million. Mendoza and Magana asked [U.S. Magistrate Judge William] Callahan to throw out the video evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, noting that "No Trespassing" signs were posted throughout the heavily wooded, 22-acre property owned by Magana and that it also had a locked gate.

Earlier, Drug Enforcement Agency officers walked around the rural property and installed several strategically placed “covert digital surveillance cameras.” Agents entered the land — land they knew to be privately owned — without permission and without a search warrant, in apparent violation of the Fourth Amendment.

U.S. District Court Judge William Griesbach held that the officers’ behavior was reasonable. In coming to this constitutionally suspect conclusion, Griesbach followed the recommendation put forth in an earlier ruling on the case made by Judge Callahan.

Commenting on the genesis of the decision, Ars Technica reported:

The property in question was heavily wooded, with a locked gate and "no trespassing" signs to notify strangers that they were unwelcome. But the judges found that this did not establish the "reasonable expectation of privacy" required for Fourth Amendment protection. In their view, such a rule would mean that (in the words of a key 1984 Supreme Court precedent) "police officers would have to guess before every search whether landowners had erected fences sufficiently high, posted a sufficient number of warning signs, or located contraband in an area sufficiently secluded to establish a right of privacy."

Read More

 

[Dunerunner]

So much for private property rights!

 

[Grunwald]

I would love to see a case where these property owners had discovered the surveillance equipment and smashed it. Have the DEA take them to court for destruction of government property and see how that turns out.

 

[Boomerang]

What do you mean smash it? Sell it on ebay!

 

[Kevatc]

Would love for a lawyer to chime in on this.

It's illegal (AFAIK) to grow marijuana even on private property. Is the property owned by the two obvious drug dealers? Why can't the police surveil private property when they suspect illegal activity? Happens all the time.

 

[jp1985]

So much for private property rights!

Agreed. That is so messed up. While I don't agree with drug growers I still believe they should have there Rights including the fourth amendment. And The police should not have encroached on to there private property!!!

 

[Modeler]

Would love for a lawyer to chime in on this.

It's illegal (AFAIK) to grow marijuana even on private property. Is the property owned by the two obvious drug dealers? Why can't the police surveil private property when they suspect illegal activity? Happens all the time.

They can surveil it from public land/streets or from cooperative neighboring properties; in this case it sounds like they entered the property without a search warrant and planted recording devices (cameras) and used the resulting recordings as evidence.

 

[Tangent123123]

Would love for a lawyer to chime in on this.

It's illegal (AFAIK) to grow marijuana even on private property. Is the property owned by the two obvious drug dealers? Why can't the police surveil private property when they suspect illegal activity? Happens all the time.

Just because land is owned by two (suspected or not) drug dealers doesn't automatically suggest illegal activity. Owning land isn't probable cause to anything besides owning land. If it's ok for them to do this on these two guys' land it is ok for them to do it on your land as well. Legally there isn't a difference.

 

[pattersonrob]

Why didn't they just use satellite to get these guys instead of infringing on there rights to private property !!! STUPID

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Would love for a lawyer to chime in on this.

It's illegal (AFAIK) to grow marijuana even on private property. Is the property owned by the two obvious drug dealers? Why can't the police surveil private property when they suspect illegal activity? Happens all the time.

Because they need a warrant from a judge first, and that warrant requires a signed oath or affidavit specifically stating the reasonable cause for a warrant, upon penalty of perjury. It has to state exactly what they are looking for..

Oh how easily people give up essential liberty

 

[Modly]

Would love for a lawyer to chime in on this.

It's illegal (AFAIK) to grow marijuana even on private property. Is the property owned by the two obvious drug dealers? Why can't the police surveil private property when they suspect illegal activity? Happens all the time.

I think that you grow weed in your house.

Let me go tell the police that, and based on my claim alone, they should kick in your door.






Do you see the problem yet?

 

[Stomper]

I think that you grow weed in your house.

Let me go tell the police that, and based on my claim alone, they should kick in your door.






Do you see the problem yet?

Yeah, Kev doesn't grow weed in his house.... Its done out in his detached workshop.

 

[22many]

Would love for a lawyer to chime in on this.

It's illegal (AFAIK) to grow marijuana even on private property. Is the property owned by the two obvious drug dealers? Why can't the police surveil private property when they suspect illegal activity? Happens all the time.

Because when it comes to the government or LE, give them a inch and they'll take a mile.

 

[Swedish K]

I think that you grow weed in your house.

Let me go tell the police that, and based on my claim alone, they should kick in your door.

Do you see the problem yet?

The sad thing here is that they were too lazy to pay an informant to tell them that there was a grow operation on the property. If they had an informant tell them about the grow they most likely could have gotten a valid warrant. The way this went down I think that the judge and the cops who did this with no warrant all deserve to loose their jobs and do some time. While I have issue with the judge and cops this in no way means that I condone the illegal activity of the "farmers".
On a somewhat related note, looks like they should have moved their operation to WA or CO as it appears that both states have voted to decriminalize and tax pot. Do you see a doubling of DEA staff in those states in the near future?

 

[Spiritof77]

I think that you grow weed in your house.

Let me go tell the police that, and based on my claim alone, they should kick in your door.






Do you see the problem yet?

Salem witch trials all over again, or, if you'd rather, the red scare of the 60's. One way or another, it's pretty much taking citizens rights and flushing them down the crapper, but not without bubblegumting on them, first.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

WA State just voted to legalize pot.. well the entire country is going to #e!! in a handbasket, so whatever

 

[Sling Blade]

All I know is that if I had dopers growing weed in bulk next to my place I'd be glad the law got them. First weed, and when they don't get busted for that, a meth lab.

 

[fredball]

What do you mean smash it? Sell it on ebay!

If it were my property I would do just that , smash it and toss it in a recycle center

 

[fredball]

WA State just voted to legalize pot.. well the entire country is going to #e!! in a handbasket, so whatever

not only did they pass the (you can get high on pot law) but while high you can marry another man

 

[Blitzkrieg]

not only did they pass the (you can get high on pot law) but while high you can marry another man

The lessons of history have been forgotten but final justice is not afar off