I believe you can sue both people and departments. If it was me, if the police did not do their job... stand by and let a crime happen on tape?! I would have got my gun!
@po11utedmind: Yes, you can sue both people and departments. But if you had gotten your gun and threatened her, you would have no doubt have found out why the deputy was there.
Please realize that she did not violate his 4th Amendment rights, and MAY have had authority to enter under Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 (if she gave due notice).
@po11utedmind look up indiana's 'castle doctrine' law. you'd notice that only under CERTAIN SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES can you produce a gun (deadly force):
she was committing/about to commit specific felonies like murder, rape, arson, burglary - she wasn't;
he reasonably felt that his safety/the safety of any third parties was in danger - he didn't.
if you pulled out a gun, you'd have been lucky to be merely arrested.
@po11utedmind If people can't respect the 4th, not being able to handle the 2nd isn't hard to expect too. What the unconstitutionalists don't understand is that it isn't important whether defending our rights results in winning or losing, it's important whether or not we fight for them. The spirit of the Declaration of Independence didn't begin after the battle against tyranny was won. It began long before before the first gunshot was fired.
@po11utedmind look up indiana's 'castle doctrine' law. you'd notice that only under CERTAIN SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES can you produce a gun (deadly force):
she was committing/about to commit specific felonies like murder, rape, arson, burglary - she wasn't;
he reasonably felt that his safety/the safety of any third parties was in danger - he didn't.
if you pulled out a gun, you'd have been lucky to be merely arrested.
@DavidForthoffer Correction, 3+ years. You've been trolling this video for over 3 years, monopolizing the comments of this video by repeating yourself ad nauseum, attacking everyone who shows up with a Constitutional idea to share, and now you're censoring my comments because you have no respect for the freedom of expression either. You have a very strange obsession here and it's alarming.
What kind of statist spammer could thumbs down a comment admitting that the federal government is rife with violations of the Constitution?
What kind of obsessed spammer with multiple email addresses would repeatedly thumbs down someone in a matter of seconds who is saying that these violations of the Constitution are not reasons for people to abandon their Constitutional rights, but rather, are reasons to support and defend the Constitution that much more?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
When all else fails, now you're silencing my posts by concertedly applying negative ratings to all of my messages. How pathetic now that every one of my comments gets the same six negative ratings in a matter of seconds. You people need to get a life. I don't know who you trolls think you are but you clearly have an unconstitutional agenda and now that you've been challenged, like cowards you can only hide the argument against you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It also needs to be said here that the federal government is RIFE with constitutional violations in every one of its three branches. These violations are not reasons for people to abandon their Constitutional rights. Those violations are reasons to support and defend the Constitution that much more. Government officials are sworn to defend the Constitution; they have failed in their oaths. It's up to us to defend the Constitution as the Founders envisioned.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This video is a no-brainer violation of the 4th. The facts you two trolls don't understand is that the 4th Amendment doesn't say that searches that are "reasonable" don't need a warrant, nor does it say that you only need a warrant in order to do an otherwise "unreasonable" search. The 4th protects against unreasonable searches by adding requirements to those searches e.g. a search warrant, with probable cause, and with specifics about what is to be searched.
The police commonly do as they please. If you don't like it & refuse to permit search or entry, officials commonly take that, in itself, as reasonable suspicion. The officials are arrogant. She is totally in the wrong, and yes, as a public official trying to trespass, she should give her name. If the man calls authorities, they will cover for each other, not the Constitution. That wreaks.
One site, "Supremely UNjust", shows proof 3 fed courts ignored the Constitution -- wow!!
@Wrayn2002: Since the 4th Amendment only protects "persons, houses, papers, and effects" and she searched none of those, she did not violate his 4th Amendment rights, and state law applies. Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 allows health inspectors to enter private property to investigate disease, after due notice. We don't know whether she gave due notice, so we don't know whether she trespassed.
@DavidForthoffer Repeating yourself for 2+ years. She searched house and she searched effects; she violated the requirement for a warrant, and the requirement for probable cause. She violated curtilage including the land surrounding the shed in his yard. She violated the reasonable expectation of privacy because she couldn't see what she wanted to from outside his property. She ignored fierce obstruction.
Due notice is not authorization; it's procedure to prevent problems.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I feel like singing a Lament to Common Sense seeing DavidForthoffer's years-long participation in the comments of this video consisting of adding up every tiny scrap and irrelevant cherry of judicial interpretation he can get his hands on to serve up his anti-constitutional agenda upon anyone who comes here that plainly sees (1797 to 72) that what happens in this video is unreasonable.
It looks like someone is trying to use YouTube's mess of a spam button to hide dissenting viewpoints.
I find that this is usually done when a person's ego is too fragile to take the fact that his own viewpoint may not be shared by everyone else in the world.
at this time, page 7, 13 hours ago, another of your lies:
"Right because you advocate the closed society where people have to build walls to keep their government out of their property and that's disgusting. Unreasonable means no warrant with probable cause."
where have i 'advocated the closed society where people have to build walls to keep government out of their property'? please quote me, verbatim, and give the time / page where i allegedly said it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@neoconsnightmare3 You do advocate a closed society when you respect a piece of wood used as a wall as obstruction but you can't respect a property owner standing in front of an inspector telling her not to enter his property. You aren't qualified to tell anyone what the confines of obstruction is nor do you have any legal basis to do so. You're wrong about everything that drips out of your lying mouth on this thread.
@heymisterderp i advocate a 'closed society' when i suggest that if you don't like the 4th AS WRITTEN, then you should be pushing for a 28th amendment that covers 'persons, houses, papers, effects and all land'?
i mean, there are 17 amendment beyond the first 10...why not 18?
oh yeah, because you're obviously lazy, trifling and nothing more than an internet screw up.
carry on.
oh yeah...PROVE that the land in question fits 2 or 3 of the 4 guidelines for curtilage as 'dunn' laid out.
Now that I've reviewed the comments again, I see that both DavidForthoffer and neoconsnightmare3 have been monopolizing the comments of this video for well over a year insulting a long line of Youtube users , e.g.: "dumber than a box of rocks"
"LOL...how long will my stalking bitch follow me around?"
"i could give less thana shit if you were in court 1,000 times. just means you're a fuck up."
"it seems you're a nut."
Gentlemen? Try a troll who has no life but to insult people on Youtube.
@heymisterderp: Your research concluding that neoconsnightmare3 and I have been insulting a long line of Youtube users and attacking them is as impressive as your research into understanding the law—both are wrong.
NONE of those ad hominem quotes were from me.
The Urban Dictionary defines "troll" as one who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument. YOU fit that definition better than me.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@DavidForthoffer Sorry but one of those insults was indeed from you. I'll let you guess which one it is. You've been trolling and monopolizing the comments on this video for over two years now. What gives? Why do you have an infatuation with making baseless claims about people defending their fourth Amendment rights?
@heymisterderp page 6, 16hours ago, shows ANOTHER lie on your part:
"@neoconsnightmare3 So now you're back to conceding that land is indeed protected by the 4th amendment so you can put down all your "real estate" kool aid for good now?
@heymisterderp but wait, you THEN lied about saying i said 'land is protected by the 4th'. page 5, 16 hours ago:
"@neoconsnightmare3 I never said you said that land is indeed protected by the fourth. That is another lie. Curtilage is land. How can you be this stupid???"
heymisterderp 16 hours ago "
within an HOUR, with only about ten posts between your first and second lie...you're a LOUSY liar.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@neoconsnightmare3 You have now spent well over a year insulting every user of Youtube who has come here to correctly point out the fact that this man's 4th amendment rights are being violated. Your 3/4 flunk claim is deranged BS. I can see that 4/4 of Dunn's nonbinding guidelines pass in this video. This is curtilage based on the definition of curtilage. Denying it is a fool's errand.
@heymisterderp why are you concerned. none of the folks i disagreed with were correct; in fact, a few wound up agreeing with me/david/pafoonik/etc. but of course, if you read back, you saw that.
there you go with 'deranged'...unless you're a psychologist and we're your patients, you're giving baseless layman's guess work.
now, back to your failings: PROVE that the area in the video meets 2/4 or 3/4 of the guidelines of 'curtilage' that the SCOTUS laid out in 'dunn'.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Actually it isn't merely months. I just went back 10 months deep into the comments of this video and there is neoconsnightmare3 and davidforthoffer busy prattling away attacking others who've come here to post. How much longer than 10 months you have both been here, I didn't even bother to look. Maybe it's years.
I am going to conclude that you're the same person who has a strange mental agenda to troll this thread posting under two different usernames as if you're two different people.
@heymisterderp: "I am going to conclude that you're the same person "
I disagree. I don't have substantial proof, but I have noted very different debate styles and personalities between the two gentlemen.
I have been accused of being another account of someone else a few times on these boards. Invariably, I've found that the person accuses me of this after a prolonged debate, when he realizes he can't sway my opinion. Rather than concede, he tries to discredit me personally.
@Pafoofnik1 I don't notice any differences in "debate styles" whatsoever and they've both been trolling this video for at least 10 months and possibly years now. You very well might be a 3rd username of the same person I've already identified as the other two.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Obviously you people have an agenda when you've been stalking this video FOR MONTHS and attacking people who are as disturbed by this unconstitutional search as I am.
@heymisterderp you've diverted before, with lies and name calling. i'll just attend to them, as i have in the past, and get right back to the issue:
YOU claimed that 3/4 of the guidelines to establish 'curtilage' by the SCOTUS in 'dunn' were met in this video. please prove as such.
i've stated that: there were no barriers to keep someone from walking onto the property; there were no obstructions of the view of that land; the area was not one where the intimate nature of the home exists
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@neoconsnightmare3 You couldn't find a lie from me to save your statist life. The barrier is the homeowner; you're too stupid to understand that. There is obstruction here in the form of a human being not a dead piece of wood. You don't know what obstruction means; you're wrong in every reply you make. You do not understand the law or the 4th amendment.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@neoconsnightmare3 You've dishonestly put words in my mouth repeatedly, repeating yourself ad nauseum that I ever said "ALL" after I've repeatedly told you I never said that is another lie a day from you. You haven't shown a single lie from me anywhere anytime. Every post I've written stands. This is obviously curtilage because it is land immediately surrounding a dwelling including closely associated structures. The proof is the dictionary. You can't handle dictionaries.
@heymisterderp: You obviously do not care about the law. If you did, you would ignore the dictionary definition of 'curtilage' and look to the U.S. Supreme Court's definition of 'curtilage', in United States v. Dunn (1987). Intelligently applying THAT definition would lead to the inescapable conclusion that the piles of dirt she walked around do not harber the intimate privacies of home life, and are not curtilage.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@DavidForthoffer I care deeply for rights no government can grant but only take away. Unfortunately for you, the Constitution is the law and you obviously think that every semi-relevant or irrelevant precedent booger you can pick will score your unconstitutional addiction with this video some points. Circling the wagons with Dunn yet again is getting impotent. Dunn strengthens the case of the man in this video substantially if that's what you rely upon.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@DavidForthoffer You've wasted over two years of your life convincing yourself that this video isn't an unconstitutional violation but this is terrible. You can't handle the simple requirement of getting a warrant. I don't ask for much. One simple step in the process of trapsing on this man's property in a constitutional way and you can't read simple English in the Amendment and understand that a warrant is required. Pathetic.
@heymisterderp no, i didn't 'dishonestly put words in your mouth' and you're a liar. i quoted you VERBATIM and gave the pages where your lies were.
YOU spammed people's statements, because you're weak. don't be surprised if the same happens to you.
when i quoted you, i didn't put the word 'all' in...i used your words.
now, after all the failed diversions: prove that the video shows the land in question passed 3 of 4 guidelines as set forth by the SCOTUS in 'dunn'. you can't.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@neoconsnightmare3 No, you have repeatedly answered me, attempting to refute my points by adding the condition "ALL" to them. I never used that word because I didn't need it.
Failing 3/4 is your assertion; you should prove your own BS. It's common sense your claim is wrong.
1) No warrant 2) No probable cause 3)"House" under the 4th 4)Effects (mobile property) on this man's property 5) Obstruction 6) Curtilage including sheds near the home and land around them.
In this video we have 1) no warrant 2) no probable cause on that warrant 3) obstruction 4) curtilage 5) reasonable expectation of privacy from the road as trespass is required to search what she wanted to look at. That's all it takes for the 4th to apply in spades. Trying to deny curtilage baselessly while ignoring these other five factors is another impotent attempt at denial.
In this video we have 1) no warrant 2) no probable cause on that warrant 3) obstruction 4) curtilage 5) reasonable expectation of privacy from the road as trespass is required to search what she wanted to look at. That's all it takes for the 4th to apply here in spades. Denying that curtilage exists here with no basis for that denial is baseless denial. Denied. She can't see from the road. All five of these factors apply as I've already explained multiple times.
In this video we have 1) no warrant 2) no probable cause on that warrant 3) obstruction 4) curtilage 5) reasonable expectation of privacy from the road as trespass is required to search what she wanted to look at. That's all it takes for the 4th to apply in spades. Your lack of being able to apply the Amendment as written is your problem, 4thless one.
@heymisterderp: You would have some good points if she HAD entered curtilage. But she clearly didn't. So those points are irrelevant, and state law applies.
@DavidForthoffer "You would have some good points if she HAD entered curtilage. But she clearly didn't. So those points are irrelevant, and state law applies."
exactly, he just SAYS things (he doesn't give proof) and calls it 'proving his point'.
i asked him four times to PROVE that the video shows the guy in the video met 3 of 4 of the SCOTUS' guidelines for 'curtilage' (after we showed him it FAILED at least 3/4) and he simply blithers.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@DavidForthoffer No she didn't "clearly didn't". That isn't clear at all. That is your opinion and I think it's a damn lousy one. Those points aren't irrelevant because she didn't enter curtilage. You people represent the most disgusting disrespect of private property I've ever seen.
Because curtilage is land and because the 4th Amendment protects curtilage, the Constitution clearly protects private property that is LAND. That was my statement that drew pafoofnik into this in the first place. If that's the only take home message I've managed to deliver here, that the 4th Amendment does indeed include land, then I'm satisfied.
Whether this video was curtilage or not is at least reasonable. Denying land is included in the 4th was pathetic.
@DavidForthoffer You won't find a single comment ever left by me where I said that ALL private property that is land is protected, so I don't know why you're saying that in reply to me over and over again.
@heymisterderp said, "You won't find a single comment ever left by me where I said that ALL private property that is land is protected".
I could quote where you implied that, but if you are agreeing that "open fields" (as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court) are not protected, then we are agreement.
Then we could argue whether she searched "open fields".
@heymisterderp: That is a pretty good definition of "house", though not quite accurate.
To be curtilage, an area must not only be immediately surrounding a home and associated with it, it must also an area that harbors the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. It is decided by nearness to home, extent that access and view is blocked, and evidence of home-like use. Here, the areas flunk 3 of 4 factors. She did not enter curtilage.
@DavidForthoffer BS Just looking at this man's yard in this video makes it obvious that she's trespassing on curtilage. There's a structure there, and she couldn't see behind it without trespassing. There's no way that anyone here can deny this violated the 4th Amendment. When we read the Amendment, and apply the law as interpreted, this search was unconstitutional.
@DavidForthoffer You don't have evidence to claim that it "flunks 3 of 4 factors". Whatever "flunks" means, and whatever "factors" means. You don't understand what curtilage is. Do homework
@heymisterderp: "Factors" means what the U.S. Supreme Court says it means, when deciding whether an area is curtilage. See the U.S. Supreme Court decision United States v. Dunn (1987).
"Flunks" in my mind means does not even come close to qualifying. No fence kept the inspector out. The land had no evidence of home-like activities, such as barbecues, chairs, patio, garden, etc.
@DavidForthoffer That's why I said you encourage closed society and the construction of walls. You should be ashamed of yourself. A reasonable expectation of privacy is applicable here, obviously, when you can't see around structures such as sheds in this man's yard. Dunn says that the "formula" per that case does not determine the extents of curtilage and I accept that it does not. Do you?
@DavidForthoffer Dunn itself was a disgusting violation of the 4th. If all that's holding our Constitution together is the lack of one regrettable court case, no wonder it's falling apart.
Applying Dunn to this case is problematic at best. The proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home? This woman was right next to his house.
@DavidForthoffer The nature of the uses to which the area is put. If landscaping private property doesn't qualify, what does? Steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by. He's standing on the edge of his property refusing consent to search. If those steps don't matter, nothing does. "Flunks" my nut. This is a sterling example of even Dunn's low standards being easily met.
@heymisterderp: Neither the activity of landscaping nor the activity of construction qualifies as "intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life". The RESULT of those activities may provide evidence associated iwith the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life, but this guy has not achieved those results yet.
Right because you advocate the closed society where people have to build walls to keep their government out of their property and that's disgusting. Unreasonable means no warrant with probable cause. Can't handle that simple fact? Chomping at the bit for some strange reason to find every stupid exception to that beautiful right you can? Pound sand. Every person in this situation should defend their property from government searches citing the USC and SCOTUS both.
Again, you are inventing claims not based on fact.
What I AM advocating is interpreting this video through the eyes of the law of the land, which means "interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court", not by derp.
In that vein, the U.S. Supreme Court has not adopted your definition of "reasonable" to mean "no warrant with probable cause".
@DavidForthoffer he has a habit of doing that. go to page 2 and 3. he claims i 'finally admitted to land being covered'; when i say i never said that, he said 'i never said that'.
i quoted him, told him when it was written, and what page it was on, and now he just avoids that topic.
he's a liar, plain and simple. not even a good liar.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@neoconsnightmare3 You are a liar. That was the first thing that flopped out of your lying mouth at me on this thread. I said find one person who thinks that believes that property isn't covered by the 4th and you showed up blathering "Here I am."
@heymisterderp i didn't prove 'diddly', but 'diddly' isn't what i was trying to prove. i (and others like david) have proven that the land in question failed three of four criteria laid out by the SCOTUS for curtilage. maybe all four were failed.
i understand the 4th STILL only covers 'persons, HOUSES, papers and effects'.
i understand 'effects' are 'moveable' property, which land is not; 'land' is 'real property'.
i didn't 'blather' about open fields, SCOTUS did in 'dunn' and 'hester'.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@neoconsnightmare3 No you haven't proven anything failed your guidelines from Dunn which aren't legally binding. Regardless of their legal impotence, it's clear that at least 3/4 guidelines pass here. Maybe all 4.
Your statist brain cannot understand the legal definition of House even though I've provided it repeatedly already.
There is plenty of movable property this inspectors is searching that are this man's effects.
You've blathered about open fields for years here.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@DavidForthoffer I interpret the video through the law of this land which means the SCOTUS AND the US Constitution. In those veins, reasonable obviously means with warrant and probable cause. You have to be capable of reading the Amendment to admit this but you're disabled.
@heymisterderp in FACT, i said simply that 'this is what the 4th amendmen covers', and it does NOT cover 'all worldly possessions' or 'house and all lands', etc.
the scotus in many cases (such as 'hester' and 'dunn' has repeatedly said that 'open fields' need neither be 'open' nor 'fields', and are not protected by the 4th. 'dunn' laid out guidelines to establish curtilage.
i said to YOU (and others) if you want 'everything' protected, get up off your asses and PUSH FOR A 28th AMENDMENT.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@DavidForthoffer I can't make trolls who have made commenting on this video for two years an intrinsically important part of their lives to stop drinking the kool aid and wake up to the fact that this case is an egregious violation of the 4th amendment because 1)there is no warrant 2)there is no probable cause 3)this isn't an open field 4)this is curtilage 5)this is obstruction 6)there is obviously a reasonable expectation of privacy when trespass is necessary to see.
@heymisterderp saying we're 'trolls' and that we're making this video 'intrinsically important' won't 'shame' us off. you failed again. YOU'RE making OUR correct interpretations of the 4th, per your logic, 'intrinsically important' to you.
health inspectors in indiana don't need a warrant if they give due notice; we don't know if she did or didn't. if she didn't, she's trespassing...but it wouldn't be FELONY trespassing.
no 4th violation, as it covers persons, houses, papers and effects only
@heymisterderp: You are definitely wrong on (3) re open field, (5) re obstruction, and (6) re privacy. That makes your other points irrelevant.
Several times I have explained WHY the U.S. Supreme Court would rule this an "open field", but you don't learn. Instead, you invent claims unsupported by the U.S. Supreme Court.
We can lead a horse to water, but we cannot force it to drink.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@DavidForthoffer No, your claiming what is now 1000+ times on this video that the blatantly obvious points I'm making are "wrong" don't make them wrong. The Supreme Court would not rule this an open field because it's closed off from view from outside the property. This is private property blocked completely from view by structures legally defined as House under 4th amendment rights. You are bereft of common sense to foolishly deny the 4th's relevance here.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@DavidForthoffer You are deranged to keep baselessly claiming that this isn't obstruction because you don't understand the meaning of the word. A fence is not the only thing capable of obstructing. A human being can too and if this video doesn't display obstructing, nothing does. You have wasted years of your life blathering untruths on this video and I know that taking over two years of your life away hurts you but you've wasted a lot of time.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@DavidForthoffer Of course this is privacy. This is private property that you cannot observe from the road without trespassing on it. DUH! Human beings don't have x-ray vision and you do not understand nor will you allow yourself to understand what constitutes reasonable expectation of privacy. Anyone could be having sex with their lovers behind that shed and here comes a government official walking around the corner of it in the most egregious violation of privacy imaginable
@heymisterderp: You fail to see the difference between YOUR reasonable expectation of privacy and what the U.S. Supreme Court regards as constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy. You EXPECTING privacy does not mean the Constitution criminalizes people who violate your expectations. Read the U.S. Supreme Court case Katz v. United States (1967)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@DavidForthoffer LOL I could say the same thing of you. You fail to see the difference between YOUR reasonable expectation of privacy and what the SCOTUS regards as constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy. Katz verifies 4th protected privacies to specifically include conversations, public places, and physical intrusions. Jerking off to yet another court case as if it discounts anything I've said regarding this video is par for your course but irrelevant.
@heymisterderp: Katz does NOT specifically include all conversations, all public places, and all physical intrusions. You cannot find any quote from Katz that supports any of your claims.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@DavidForthoffer No, I can't find any finding in Katz that supports your claim. There you go again, putting the word "all" into my mouth when I never said it. Nothing about Katz is relevant to your prattling nonsense that the 4th doesn't apply to this video. My claims about Katz are accurate as given right out of the encyclopedia. You have a serious problem with the US Constitution. Get help for that.
@heymisterderp: You say "Katz verifies 4th protected privacies to specifically include conversations...". That can only mean ALL conversations or SOME conversations. Meaning ALL is forthright, meaningful, and false. Meaning SOME is trivial and useless. But you, no doubt, will refuse to say what you mean.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@DavidForthoffer Well then take trivial and useless which is the explanation for why it's irrelevant to this video; hence you're desperate and grasping at every straw you can get your grubby nubbies on trying in your two-year addiction to this video attempting to violate the Constitution.
@heymisterderp lol...well, i and david (and pafoonik too) allegedly have a 'two year addiction' but you have a week old addiction which, per your logic, is no better.
i noticed the times you posted...10 hours ago, 9 hours ago, 5 hours ago. you gonna get some sleep?
and spamming me and david...for shame. pafoonik saw that too. i noticed that for all your interest in this topic, you spammed us. how sad. don't want those dissenting points of view?
@neoconsnightmare3 Spammed you? You need to look through the comments of this video for the past year. You are the living embodiment of spam. Spanked you is more like it. Life is short. Anyone so obsessed with bleating about this video and how the US Constitution isn't violated by the actions on it for over two years now, perhaps over three years, needs to get a life.
@DavidForthoffer Trivial and useless for discussion of this video, yes, which is precisely why you should have never brought it up in the first place. Nice work hiding a constitutional view here, by the way. The sudden 6 negative ratings on all of my comments is just pathetic. You anti-Constitution-agenda bots have no respect for the 1st Amendment either; how predictable.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You two have been trolling this video for close to two years now, rubbing each others prostates and insulting everyone who comes here who disagrees with you. Based on the entirety of your comments you believe that only a fence can secure 4th amendment rights in this case and that is simply not true. Neither one of you statists are capable of understanding that obstruction is not limited to fences, obstruction by human being is relevant to the 4th. Do homework; you people desperately need it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@neoconsnightmare3 I NEVER said ALL, you statist liar. Quit putting words in my mouth I never said. How many times must you get beaten in the skull and reminded of what I never said? You're a desperate liar who has to put the same word in my mouth 10 times so you have 10 things to say in reply to me because you're vapid of substance. This isn't an open field you cluebag because you can't see what you want to see from outside the property. Get a legal clue.
@DavidForthoffer Who told you that landscaping isn't "intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and privacies of life"?" Where's that list you are now implying that you have. I can't wait to read it. That's not in the 4th if we read what it says and interpret it as so. What is you peoples' problems with a warrant. GET A GD'ED WARRANT. IT'S NOT THAT DIFFICULT.
@neoconsnightmare3 Every post I've written so far is correct. You have nothing backing up your assertions that the 4th doesn't apply to this video. No they don't agree with you. When you're so emotionally disabled from understanding what's protected by the 4th you run to the SCOTUS and you still can't deal with the fact that this video's search is unconstitutional. The 4th doesn't specify where those persons, houses, papers and effects must be. Get a warrant, 4th-less.
@Pafoofnik1 I'm not interested in confining this conversation to what you said. If you don't have probable cause, you don't get a warrant. If you don't get a warrant, you can't snoop around someone's property that you can't see from the road. It's moronic thinking like yours which encourages a closed society. You (unwittingly?) want to build walls and build fences and lock people into their houses afraid to have parties, afraid to live their lives, afraid of their government.
@heymisterderp said: "I'm not interested in confining this conversation to what you said. "
OK. Just don't expect me to participate when you stray off topic.
Like now where you just want to attack a person for agreeing with you. Yeas, agree. You would realize this if you read my first two comments or so to you.
@heymisterderp you said this to pafoonik: " I'm not interested in confining this conversation to what you said. "
you seem to think what YOU think/believe/like matters? it doesn't. what DOES matter is:
1) what the constitution says the 4th protects (persons, houses, papers and effects) from UNREASONABLE searches;
2) what the SCOTUS said in several cases like 'dunn' and hester' about how not all land is protected, only curtilage, and how they defined 'curtilage'.
@neoconsnightmare3 Several cases protect land. I never made the claim that ALL land is covered. You can keep pouring that ditz kool aid till the cows come home and you're still not going to understand that both the Constitution AND the SCOTUS back up everything I've said here so far. How dare you make the insolent baseless claim that somehow effects aren't on one's own property so therefore it's not unreasonable? GET A WARRANT AND HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO GET IT.
@heymisterderp "Several cases protect land. I never made the claim that ALL land is covered. "
okay...so why does the land in the video get covered by the 4th? per 'dunn', it fails AT LEAST three of four guidelines.
answer the question. since this was land that was easily accessed from the road, easily seen from the road, and has NO INTIMATE NATURE OF THE HOUSEHOLD associated with it (and seemingly too far from the house), per 'dunn' it fails to be considered curtilage.
@neoconsnightmare3 So now you're back to conceding that land is indeed protected by the 4th amendment so you can put down all your "real estate" kool aid for good now?
At least three of the four? No, it fails one of the four, and where did Dunn say it must pass four of the four?
@neoconsnightmare3 I never said you said that land is indeed protected by the fourth. That is another lie. Curtilage is land. How can you be this stupid??? NO you're wrong, it doesn't fail 3/4 it clearly passes at least 2. You unconstitutional wall builders are pathetic.
@neoconsnightmare3 So now you're back to conceding that land is indeed protected by the 4th amendment so you can put down all your "real estate" kool aid for good now?
At least three of the four? No, it fails one of the four, and where did Dunn say it must pass four of the four?
@neoconsnightmare3 You don't know what curtilage means, you don't know what unreasonable is, you haven't read the amendment as written, you're putting words in my mouth I NEVER said to impotently claim I'm wrong, you don't even understand the court cases you cite. Everything you've bothered me to talk about so far has been in grievous error on your part.
@Pafoofnik1: FYI, I just want to let you know that it is a pleasure to discuss issues with YOU. You are obviously an intelligent person who cares about our rights as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. You are not only capable of reading and understand U.S. Supreme Court decisions, you DO. Our discussions are short and interesting because we stick to the issues and try our best to understand the Court.
@DavidForthoffer: LOL. I was pretty sure I was right when I first watched this video. You tasked me to prove I was right. So I did what it seems few do here...
I researched.
I found that I was wrong, in this case. I found that I think she has the law on her side in this case.
I believe the law is unconstitutional. I think we disagree a bit on this. No problem. After all, we're both adults here.
@Pafoofnik1 Having an unconstitutional "law" on your side isn't saying much. She had to give notice and she gave notice the day before. Giving notice doesn't replace consent. If she isn't given permission to trapse on his property the 4th amendment applies.
@Pafoofnik1 I've read all of what you're writing. Once you understand that the Constitution is the law, then when you think something is unconstitutional you will understand that under the current law, doing it is not allowed. You do not turn the Constitution off when it's convenient to do so. It's always in force. It's perpetual.
@Pafoofnik1 Indiana law does not supplant or replace the US Constitution. I don't even know what law you're talking about. Giving notice? Notices authorize nobody without consent. Try again. The Indiana Constitution gives him the same protection that the US Constitution does. Any and all unconstitutional laws should be challenged at all times precisely because they're illegal. If you think this is unconstitutional (you do) then respect the law and stop looking for excuses not to.
If you watch the video he says that she was there the day before. That would have been giving notice. He already knew that she was there to search and he obviously didn't give her consent the first time. She came back with Cooper.
@DavidForthoffer The day before this video was filmed may well have been the search date and he refused to allow her to search then. She returned the next day with a police officer. The date of the notice is irrelevant to the law. Notices don't give people authority. Consent is still required under the 4th Amendment. This landowner handled the situation appropriately. Lazy inspectors who can't get warrants are regrettable.
@Pafoofnik1: Right. WE are both adults here ("adult" in the sense of "mature", not years).
Our disagreements are generally around the "edges" of the law. One of us does not contradict clear holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court, then support the contradiction only by means of rehashing and ad hominem attacks.
@Pafoofnik1: Sorry, I didn't mean that. Maybe instead of saying "One of us does not contradict ..." I should have said "Neither of us contradicts ..."
I'm not rephrasing anything. Read the damn Amendment and then apply it as it's written. Probable cause. Warrant. Problem? Then you don't care about what the Constitution says.
So based on the US v. Jones, we don't even regard a person's subjective expectation of privacy anymore to know that the 4th Amendment applies to government trespassory searches of a person's property. Cluelessly trying to deny the 4th Amendment right as it applies is so pathetic it's laughable.
Telling me that "nobody "cares how I apply the reading of the 4th amendment stands in pathetic blindness to the body of comments on this thread. Don't disserve yourself with lies trying to speak for others. You're enormously outnumbered on this one. Saying that "everyone" agrees with my interpretation is far closer to the truth.
@heymisterderp no, and i should rephrase what i said: the supreme court in dunn and hester don't care how you interpret the constitution's 4th amendment.
the state of indiana, where this happens, doesn't seem to care.
don't worry...i could say 'the 4th means that police and government inspectors have to show up in pink tutus and call me daddy', but none of the above would care if i interpret it as such.
really? i'm 'outnumber'? what are the numbers and objectively prove them.
@neoconsnightmare3 No they don't seem to care. And the lack of caring doesn't create the reality unless we let lazy wusses determine the bounds of our liberty in this country. I'm not going to agree with you shoulder shrugged appeasers and legal pussies who are hellbent on finding any scrap of BS they can cling to, to destroy the Bill of Rights. You're making a fool of yourself. The 4th applies to the video above, whether you wet your diapers or not.
as i challenged you earlier, since you say 'everyone agrees' with you and i'm 'enormously outnumber on this one' , please prove those numbers in whole numbers and percentages.
i'd also like to see your information gathering methodology, as well as the margins of error (in percentage points).
you'll also have to show me the credentials of the info gathering person /agency and when it was published.
@neoconsnightmare3 Find someone here who agrees with you that the 4th doesn't include property as in land. You are already proven wrong to think it doesn't when there's an "open field" exception to warrants. The credential that is required for you to accept such knowledge is the encyclopedia. If you're so blind in denial that you're going to start denying the encyclopedia then you have a problem so severe even I can't help you.
when was i allegedly 'proven wrong'? not by you. you never proved anything...in fact, you ADMITTED your messed up view of the 4th was your opinion. try again, princess.
no matter what you say, or how many times you say it, the 4th STILL only protects 'unreasonable searches and seizures' of 'persons, houses, papers and effects'. not 'all worldly goods.
you not understanding english is not my problem. and the SCOTUS backs me up.
@heymisterderp said: "Find someone here who agrees with you that the 4th doesn't include property as in land."
I'm right here. I think it's wrong. I don't think it's constitutional. But I know some guys in robes have decided that some oPark's and Wildlife guys can come onto my land on occasion.
@Pafoofnik1 If it isn't Constitutional then it isn't excluded in the 4th Amendment because the part of the Constitution that applies to this IS the 4th Amendment. Yes, it does suck. But, there are plenty of guys in robes who include private property such as land, so it isn't the 4th Amendment that did anything, it was just guys in robes.
@Pafoofnik1 Sometimes you win sometimes you don't. That's no reason not to fight. And no "it" won't necessarily be how far the guy in the video got.
The people who wrote the Constitution, should you happen to care, were very clear about people taking liberty back from the government. That's the whole point.
@heymisterderp: I agree. You should be able to understand this if you take into account everything I wrote, not just apparently focus on what I said that you didn't like.
@Pafoofnik1 Shrugging your shoulder and picking rhetorical problems with me is no way to defend your liberty let alone understand what the 4th Amendment protects. It protects private property from government searches. Denying this is ludicrous. There would be no "open field" exception to needing a search warrant, there would be no concept of curtilage, there would be no interpretation of the expectation of privacy in our yards.
@Pafoofnik1 heya pafoonik. that fool has NOTHING to back up his assertations. funny , isn't he?
remember that fool that said a few months back he was allegedly in law school and that he spoke with the ACLU in indiana? he got quiet when challenged.
@Pafoofnik1 we can disgree. i just know what 'effects' are and they are NOT 'real estate'.
heymistress, i BELIEVE, is that same dolt that pretended to be a law student a few months back. he/she/it comes back under different names. i find them hilarious.
@neoconsnightmare3 Yes if you were here months ago taking your unconstitutional piss you just admitted you have a strange emotional attachment to this video. I think that's pathetic. You're destroying the 4th because you're dishonestly using every stinking little false claim you can think of to render it irrelevant here and you're a failure.
@neoconsnightmare3 No you attack them just like you attacked me. The 4th applies here and your wet diapers are going to soak and stink and your lies aren't going to serve you.
Here you go again with more lies with "all worldly possessions". The legal definition of house includes curtilage which applies here. I've pointed out all of your false claims; read what I write.
yeah freedom my ass ameshitca.
daryps03 9 hours ago
I believe you can sue both people and departments. If it was me, if the police did not do their job... stand by and let a crime happen on tape?! I would have got my gun!
po11utedmind 12 hours ago
@po11utedmind: Yes, you can sue both people and departments. But if you had gotten your gun and threatened her, you would have no doubt have found out why the deputy was there.
Please realize that she did not violate his 4th Amendment rights, and MAY have had authority to enter under Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 (if she gave due notice).
DavidForthoffer 10 hours ago 11
This has been flagged as spam show
@po11utedmind look up indiana's 'castle doctrine' law. you'd notice that only under CERTAIN SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES can you produce a gun (deadly force):
she was committing/about to commit specific felonies like murder, rape, arson, burglary - she wasn't;
he reasonably felt that his safety/the safety of any third parties was in danger - he didn't.
if you pulled out a gun, you'd have been lucky to be merely arrested.
neoconsnightmare3 9 hours ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
@po11utedmind If people can't respect the 4th, not being able to handle the 2nd isn't hard to expect too. What the unconstitutionalists don't understand is that it isn't important whether defending our rights results in winning or losing, it's important whether or not we fight for them. The spirit of the Declaration of Independence didn't begin after the battle against tyranny was won. It began long before before the first gunshot was fired.
heymisterderp 6 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@po11utedmind look up indiana's 'castle doctrine' law. you'd notice that only under CERTAIN SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES can you produce a gun (deadly force):
she was committing/about to commit specific felonies like murder, rape, arson, burglary - she wasn't;
he reasonably felt that his safety/the safety of any third parties was in danger - he didn't.
if you pulled out a gun, you'd have been lucky to be merely arrested.
neoconsnightmare3 6 hours ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
@DavidForthoffer Correction, 3+ years. You've been trolling this video for over 3 years, monopolizing the comments of this video by repeating yourself ad nauseum, attacking everyone who shows up with a Constitutional idea to share, and now you're censoring my comments because you have no respect for the freedom of expression either. You have a very strange obsession here and it's alarming.
heymisterderp 16 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What kind of statist spammer could thumbs down a comment admitting that the federal government is rife with violations of the Constitution?
What kind of obsessed spammer with multiple email addresses would repeatedly thumbs down someone in a matter of seconds who is saying that these violations of the Constitution are not reasons for people to abandon their Constitutional rights, but rather, are reasons to support and defend the Constitution that much more?
heymisterderp 21 hours ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
When all else fails, now you're silencing my posts by concertedly applying negative ratings to all of my messages. How pathetic now that every one of my comments gets the same six negative ratings in a matter of seconds. You people need to get a life. I don't know who you trolls think you are but you clearly have an unconstitutional agenda and now that you've been challenged, like cowards you can only hide the argument against you.
heymisterderp 21 hours ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It also needs to be said here that the federal government is RIFE with constitutional violations in every one of its three branches. These violations are not reasons for people to abandon their Constitutional rights. Those violations are reasons to support and defend the Constitution that much more. Government officials are sworn to defend the Constitution; they have failed in their oaths. It's up to us to defend the Constitution as the Founders envisioned.
heymisterderp 21 hours ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This video is a no-brainer violation of the 4th. The facts you two trolls don't understand is that the 4th Amendment doesn't say that searches that are "reasonable" don't need a warrant, nor does it say that you only need a warrant in order to do an otherwise "unreasonable" search. The 4th protects against unreasonable searches by adding requirements to those searches e.g. a search warrant, with probable cause, and with specifics about what is to be searched.
heymisterderp 21 hours ago
The police commonly do as they please. If you don't like it & refuse to permit search or entry, officials commonly take that, in itself, as reasonable suspicion. The officials are arrogant. She is totally in the wrong, and yes, as a public official trying to trespass, she should give her name. If the man calls authorities, they will cover for each other, not the Constitution. That wreaks.
One site, "Supremely UNjust", shows proof 3 fed courts ignored the Constitution -- wow!!
Wrayn2002 22 hours ago
@Wrayn2002: Since the 4th Amendment only protects "persons, houses, papers, and effects" and she searched none of those, she did not violate his 4th Amendment rights, and state law applies. Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 allows health inspectors to enter private property to investigate disease, after due notice. We don't know whether she gave due notice, so we don't know whether she trespassed.
DavidForthoffer 17 hours ago 26
This has been flagged as spam show
@DavidForthoffer Repeating yourself for 2+ years. She searched house and she searched effects; she violated the requirement for a warrant, and the requirement for probable cause. She violated curtilage including the land surrounding the shed in his yard. She violated the reasonable expectation of privacy because she couldn't see what she wanted to from outside his property. She ignored fierce obstruction.
Due notice is not authorization; it's procedure to prevent problems.
heymisterderp 17 hours ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I feel like singing a Lament to Common Sense seeing DavidForthoffer's years-long participation in the comments of this video consisting of adding up every tiny scrap and irrelevant cherry of judicial interpretation he can get his hands on to serve up his anti-constitutional agenda upon anyone who comes here that plainly sees (1797 to 72) that what happens in this video is unreasonable.
heymisterderp 1 day ago
It looks like someone is trying to use YouTube's mess of a spam button to hide dissenting viewpoints.
I find that this is usually done when a person's ego is too fragile to take the fact that his own viewpoint may not be shared by everyone else in the world.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago 15
at this time, page 7, 13 hours ago, another of your lies:
"Right because you advocate the closed society where people have to build walls to keep their government out of their property and that's disgusting. Unreasonable means no warrant with probable cause."
where have i 'advocated the closed society where people have to build walls to keep government out of their property'? please quote me, verbatim, and give the time / page where i allegedly said it.
if you can't, you're a liar.
neoconsnightmare3 1 day ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@neoconsnightmare3 You do advocate a closed society when you respect a piece of wood used as a wall as obstruction but you can't respect a property owner standing in front of an inspector telling her not to enter his property. You aren't qualified to tell anyone what the confines of obstruction is nor do you have any legal basis to do so. You're wrong about everything that drips out of your lying mouth on this thread.
heymisterderp 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heymisterderp i advocate a 'closed society' when i suggest that if you don't like the 4th AS WRITTEN, then you should be pushing for a 28th amendment that covers 'persons, houses, papers, effects and all land'?
i mean, there are 17 amendment beyond the first 10...why not 18?
oh yeah, because you're obviously lazy, trifling and nothing more than an internet screw up.
carry on.
oh yeah...PROVE that the land in question fits 2 or 3 of the 4 guidelines for curtilage as 'dunn' laid out.
neoconsnightmare3 1 day ago
Now that I've reviewed the comments again, I see that both DavidForthoffer and neoconsnightmare3 have been monopolizing the comments of this video for well over a year insulting a long line of Youtube users , e.g.: "dumber than a box of rocks"
"LOL...how long will my stalking bitch follow me around?"
"i could give less thana shit if you were in court 1,000 times. just means you're a fuck up."
"it seems you're a nut."
Gentlemen? Try a troll who has no life but to insult people on Youtube.
heymisterderp 2 days ago
@heymisterderp: Your research concluding that neoconsnightmare3 and I have been insulting a long line of Youtube users and attacking them is as impressive as your research into understanding the law—both are wrong.
NONE of those ad hominem quotes were from me.
The Urban Dictionary defines "troll" as one who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument. YOU fit that definition better than me.
DavidForthoffer 2 days ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DavidForthoffer Sorry but one of those insults was indeed from you. I'll let you guess which one it is. You've been trolling and monopolizing the comments on this video for over two years now. What gives? Why do you have an infatuation with making baseless claims about people defending their fourth Amendment rights?
heymisterderp 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heymisterderp page 6, 16hours ago, shows ANOTHER lie on your part:
"@neoconsnightmare3 So now you're back to conceding that land is indeed protected by the 4th amendment so you can put down all your "real estate" kool aid for good now?
heymisterderp 16 hours ago "
i never 'conceded' anything. you lied.
neoconsnightmare3 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heymisterderp but wait, you THEN lied about saying i said 'land is protected by the 4th'. page 5, 16 hours ago:
"@neoconsnightmare3 I never said you said that land is indeed protected by the fourth. That is another lie. Curtilage is land. How can you be this stupid???"
heymisterderp 16 hours ago "
within an HOUR, with only about ten posts between your first and second lie...you're a LOUSY liar.
neoconsnightmare3 1 day ago
@heymisterderp i hurl insults at people, but only when they start the insulting language.
if you're hurt, or if i made you cry, then there's one way you can alleviate your pain...stop with the insults.
if you continue, then since i'm better at it than you, i'll respond with insults. and then get back to PROVING what i said.
now, you haven't proven that the land in the video passed 3/4 of the guidelines to establish 'curtilage' that the SCOTUS laid out. please do so.
neoconsnightmare3 1 day ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@neoconsnightmare3 You have now spent well over a year insulting every user of Youtube who has come here to correctly point out the fact that this man's 4th amendment rights are being violated. Your 3/4 flunk claim is deranged BS. I can see that 4/4 of Dunn's nonbinding guidelines pass in this video. This is curtilage based on the definition of curtilage. Denying it is a fool's errand.
heymisterderp 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heymisterderp why are you concerned. none of the folks i disagreed with were correct; in fact, a few wound up agreeing with me/david/pafoonik/etc. but of course, if you read back, you saw that.
there you go with 'deranged'...unless you're a psychologist and we're your patients, you're giving baseless layman's guess work.
now, back to your failings: PROVE that the area in the video meets 2/4 or 3/4 of the guidelines of 'curtilage' that the SCOTUS laid out in 'dunn'.
you can't.
neoconsnightmare3 1 day ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Actually it isn't merely months. I just went back 10 months deep into the comments of this video and there is neoconsnightmare3 and davidforthoffer busy prattling away attacking others who've come here to post. How much longer than 10 months you have both been here, I didn't even bother to look. Maybe it's years.
I am going to conclude that you're the same person who has a strange mental agenda to troll this thread posting under two different usernames as if you're two different people.
heymisterderp 2 days ago
@heymisterderp: "I am going to conclude that you're the same person "
I disagree. I don't have substantial proof, but I have noted very different debate styles and personalities between the two gentlemen.
I have been accused of being another account of someone else a few times on these boards. Invariably, I've found that the person accuses me of this after a prolonged debate, when he realizes he can't sway my opinion. Rather than concede, he tries to discredit me personally.
Pafoofnik1 2 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 I don't notice any differences in "debate styles" whatsoever and they've both been trolling this video for at least 10 months and possibly years now. You very well might be a 3rd username of the same person I've already identified as the other two.
heymisterderp 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heymisterderp said: "You very well might be a 3rd username "
If you believe I am the same person as these other two people, then you fit my description of people that do this to a 'T'.
Pafoofnik1 2 days ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Obviously you people have an agenda when you've been stalking this video FOR MONTHS and attacking people who are as disturbed by this unconstitutional search as I am.
heymisterderp 2 days ago
@heymisterderp 'stalking a video'? okay, that was odd.
neoconsnightmare3 1 day ago
@heymisterderp you've diverted before, with lies and name calling. i'll just attend to them, as i have in the past, and get right back to the issue:
YOU claimed that 3/4 of the guidelines to establish 'curtilage' by the SCOTUS in 'dunn' were met in this video. please prove as such.
i've stated that: there were no barriers to keep someone from walking onto the property; there were no obstructions of the view of that land; the area was not one where the intimate nature of the home exists
neoconsnightmare3 1 day ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@neoconsnightmare3 You couldn't find a lie from me to save your statist life. The barrier is the homeowner; you're too stupid to understand that. There is obstruction here in the form of a human being not a dead piece of wood. You don't know what obstruction means; you're wrong in every reply you make. You do not understand the law or the 4th amendment.
heymisterderp 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heymisterderp i found the lies, and i've posted them. you trying to erase them won't do you any good.
no, the barrier is NOT the homeowner, nor did 'dunn' say that. try again.
now, PROVE that the owner established 'curtilage' on that land that was neither:
in evidence of barriers to keep people from walking onto it from public areas;
in possession of a fence/trees or something to block view from public areas;
nor a place where the 'intimate nature of the household' takes place.
you can't
neoconsnightmare3 1 day ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@neoconsnightmare3 You've dishonestly put words in my mouth repeatedly, repeating yourself ad nauseum that I ever said "ALL" after I've repeatedly told you I never said that is another lie a day from you. You haven't shown a single lie from me anywhere anytime. Every post I've written stands. This is obviously curtilage because it is land immediately surrounding a dwelling including closely associated structures. The proof is the dictionary. You can't handle dictionaries.
heymisterderp 1 day ago
@heymisterderp: You obviously do not care about the law. If you did, you would ignore the dictionary definition of 'curtilage' and look to the U.S. Supreme Court's definition of 'curtilage', in United States v. Dunn (1987). Intelligently applying THAT definition would lead to the inescapable conclusion that the piles of dirt she walked around do not harber the intimate privacies of home life, and are not curtilage.
DavidForthoffer 1 day ago 14
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DavidForthoffer I care deeply for rights no government can grant but only take away. Unfortunately for you, the Constitution is the law and you obviously think that every semi-relevant or irrelevant precedent booger you can pick will score your unconstitutional addiction with this video some points. Circling the wagons with Dunn yet again is getting impotent. Dunn strengthens the case of the man in this video substantially if that's what you rely upon.
heymisterderp 1 day ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DavidForthoffer You've wasted over two years of your life convincing yourself that this video isn't an unconstitutional violation but this is terrible. You can't handle the simple requirement of getting a warrant. I don't ask for much. One simple step in the process of trapsing on this man's property in a constitutional way and you can't read simple English in the Amendment and understand that a warrant is required. Pathetic.
heymisterderp 1 day ago
@heymisterderp no, i didn't 'dishonestly put words in your mouth' and you're a liar. i quoted you VERBATIM and gave the pages where your lies were.
YOU spammed people's statements, because you're weak. don't be surprised if the same happens to you.
when i quoted you, i didn't put the word 'all' in...i used your words.
now, after all the failed diversions: prove that the video shows the land in question passed 3 of 4 guidelines as set forth by the SCOTUS in 'dunn'. you can't.
neoconsnightmare3 22 hours ago 31
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@neoconsnightmare3 No, you have repeatedly answered me, attempting to refute my points by adding the condition "ALL" to them. I never used that word because I didn't need it.
Failing 3/4 is your assertion; you should prove your own BS. It's common sense your claim is wrong.
1) No warrant 2) No probable cause 3)"House" under the 4th 4)Effects (mobile property) on this man's property 5) Obstruction 6) Curtilage including sheds near the home and land around them.
heymisterderp 21 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In this video we have 1) no warrant 2) no probable cause on that warrant 3) obstruction 4) curtilage 5) reasonable expectation of privacy from the road as trespass is required to search what she wanted to look at. That's all it takes for the 4th to apply in spades. Trying to deny curtilage baselessly while ignoring these other five factors is another impotent attempt at denial.
heymisterderp 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In this video we have 1) no warrant 2) no probable cause on that warrant 3) obstruction 4) curtilage 5) reasonable expectation of privacy from the road as trespass is required to search what she wanted to look at. That's all it takes for the 4th to apply here in spades. Denying that curtilage exists here with no basis for that denial is baseless denial. Denied. She can't see from the road. All five of these factors apply as I've already explained multiple times.
heymisterderp 2 days ago
In this video we have 1) no warrant 2) no probable cause on that warrant 3) obstruction 4) curtilage 5) reasonable expectation of privacy from the road as trespass is required to search what she wanted to look at. That's all it takes for the 4th to apply in spades. Your lack of being able to apply the Amendment as written is your problem, 4thless one.
heymisterderp 2 days ago
@heymisterderp: You would have some good points if she HAD entered curtilage. But she clearly didn't. So those points are irrelevant, and state law applies.
DavidForthoffer 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DavidForthoffer "You would have some good points if she HAD entered curtilage. But she clearly didn't. So those points are irrelevant, and state law applies."
exactly, he just SAYS things (he doesn't give proof) and calls it 'proving his point'.
i asked him four times to PROVE that the video shows the guy in the video met 3 of 4 of the SCOTUS' guidelines for 'curtilage' (after we showed him it FAILED at least 3/4) and he simply blithers.
neoconsnightmare3 2 days ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DavidForthoffer No she didn't "clearly didn't". That isn't clear at all. That is your opinion and I think it's a damn lousy one. Those points aren't irrelevant because she didn't enter curtilage. You people represent the most disgusting disrespect of private property I've ever seen.
heymisterderp 2 days ago
Because curtilage is land and because the 4th Amendment protects curtilage, the Constitution clearly protects private property that is LAND. That was my statement that drew pafoofnik into this in the first place. If that's the only take home message I've managed to deliver here, that the 4th Amendment does indeed include land, then I'm satisfied.
Whether this video was curtilage or not is at least reasonable. Denying land is included in the 4th was pathetic.
heymisterderp 3 days ago
@heymisterderp: The 4th Amendment protects SOME private property that is land, not ALL private property that is land.
It may not be clear to you, but it is clear to the U.S. Supreme Court that the 4th Amendment does not protect ALL private property that is land.
DavidForthoffer 2 days ago
@DavidForthoffer You won't find a single comment ever left by me where I said that ALL private property that is land is protected, so I don't know why you're saying that in reply to me over and over again.
heymisterderp 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heymisterderp said, "You won't find a single comment ever left by me where I said that ALL private property that is land is protected".
I could quote where you implied that, but if you are agreeing that "open fields" (as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court) are not protected, then we are agreement.
Then we could argue whether she searched "open fields".
DavidForthoffer 2 days ago
“House” includes:
(1) structures used as residences, including those used temporarily, such as a hotel room;
(2) buildings attached to the residence, such as a garage;
(3) buildings not physically attached to a residence, e.g., a shed;
(4) the curtilage of the home, which is THE LAND immediately surrounding and associated with the home, such as a backyard.
That is what the 4th Amendment protects and thus it obviously includes land. Denying this is a foolish errand.
heymisterderp 3 days ago
@heymisterderp: That is a pretty good definition of "house", though not quite accurate.
To be curtilage, an area must not only be immediately surrounding a home and associated with it, it must also an area that harbors the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. It is decided by nearness to home, extent that access and view is blocked, and evidence of home-like use. Here, the areas flunk 3 of 4 factors. She did not enter curtilage.
DavidForthoffer 3 days ago
@DavidForthoffer BS Just looking at this man's yard in this video makes it obvious that she's trespassing on curtilage. There's a structure there, and she couldn't see behind it without trespassing. There's no way that anyone here can deny this violated the 4th Amendment. When we read the Amendment, and apply the law as interpreted, this search was unconstitutional.
heymisterderp 3 days ago
@DavidForthoffer You don't have evidence to claim that it "flunks 3 of 4 factors". Whatever "flunks" means, and whatever "factors" means. You don't understand what curtilage is. Do homework
heymisterderp 3 days ago
@heymisterderp: "Factors" means what the U.S. Supreme Court says it means, when deciding whether an area is curtilage. See the U.S. Supreme Court decision United States v. Dunn (1987).
"Flunks" in my mind means does not even come close to qualifying. No fence kept the inspector out. The land had no evidence of home-like activities, such as barbecues, chairs, patio, garden, etc.
Let me guess, you have not even read Dunn, right?
DavidForthoffer 2 days ago
@DavidForthoffer That's why I said you encourage closed society and the construction of walls. You should be ashamed of yourself. A reasonable expectation of privacy is applicable here, obviously, when you can't see around structures such as sheds in this man's yard. Dunn says that the "formula" per that case does not determine the extents of curtilage and I accept that it does not. Do you?
heymisterderp 2 days ago
@DavidForthoffer Dunn itself was a disgusting violation of the 4th. If all that's holding our Constitution together is the lack of one regrettable court case, no wonder it's falling apart.
Applying Dunn to this case is problematic at best. The proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home? This woman was right next to his house.
heymisterderp 2 days ago
@DavidForthoffer The nature of the uses to which the area is put. If landscaping private property doesn't qualify, what does? Steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by. He's standing on the edge of his property refusing consent to search. If those steps don't matter, nothing does. "Flunks" my nut. This is a sterling example of even Dunn's low standards being easily met.
heymisterderp 2 days ago
@heymisterderp: Neither the activity of landscaping nor the activity of construction qualifies as "intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life". The RESULT of those activities may provide evidence associated iwith the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life, but this guy has not achieved those results yet.
DavidForthoffer 2 days ago
Right because you advocate the closed society where people have to build walls to keep their government out of their property and that's disgusting. Unreasonable means no warrant with probable cause. Can't handle that simple fact? Chomping at the bit for some strange reason to find every stupid exception to that beautiful right you can? Pound sand. Every person in this situation should defend their property from government searches citing the USC and SCOTUS both.
heymisterderp 2 days ago
@heymisterderp told me: "you advocate...".
Again, you are inventing claims not based on fact.
What I AM advocating is interpreting this video through the eyes of the law of the land, which means "interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court", not by derp.
In that vein, the U.S. Supreme Court has not adopted your definition of "reasonable" to mean "no warrant with probable cause".
DavidForthoffer 2 days ago
@DavidForthoffer he has a habit of doing that. go to page 2 and 3. he claims i 'finally admitted to land being covered'; when i say i never said that, he said 'i never said that'.
i quoted him, told him when it was written, and what page it was on, and now he just avoids that topic.
he's a liar, plain and simple. not even a good liar.
neoconsnightmare3 2 days ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@neoconsnightmare3 You are a liar. That was the first thing that flopped out of your lying mouth at me on this thread. I said find one person who thinks that believes that property isn't covered by the 4th and you showed up blathering "Here I am."
heymisterderp 2 days ago
@heymisterderp quote me where the first statement out of my mouth to you was ''you're a liar''. give the page and the time (for example 5 days ago).
don't paraphrase what you or i said...give verbatim quotes and WHERE they're at.
when you're done: PROVE that the land in the video meets 3/4 of the guidelines to establish 'curtilage' that the SCOTUS in 'dunn' laid out.
you've cried a lot about other things, but can't quite seem to give that proof.
neoconsnightmare3 1 day ago
Comment removed
heymisterderp 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heymisterderp i didn't prove 'diddly', but 'diddly' isn't what i was trying to prove. i (and others like david) have proven that the land in question failed three of four criteria laid out by the SCOTUS for curtilage. maybe all four were failed.
i understand the 4th STILL only covers 'persons, HOUSES, papers and effects'.
i understand 'effects' are 'moveable' property, which land is not; 'land' is 'real property'.
i didn't 'blather' about open fields, SCOTUS did in 'dunn' and 'hester'.
neoconsnightmare3 1 day ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@neoconsnightmare3 No you haven't proven anything failed your guidelines from Dunn which aren't legally binding. Regardless of their legal impotence, it's clear that at least 3/4 guidelines pass here. Maybe all 4.
Your statist brain cannot understand the legal definition of House even though I've provided it repeatedly already.
There is plenty of movable property this inspectors is searching that are this man's effects.
You've blathered about open fields for years here.
heymisterderp 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heymisterderp "No you haven't proven anything failed your guidelines from Dunn which aren't legally binding. "
1st: they aren't 'my' guidelines. this is how you lie. they are the SCOTUS' 'guidelines;
2nd: never said they were 'legally binding', but;
3; that also means that THIS is how most courts are going to rule on 'curtilage';
4) per YOUR own statements, the video DID pass 3 of 4 'guidelines', which means;
5) you went along with it, so;
6) prove it.
neoconsnightmare3 22 hours ago 29
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DavidForthoffer I interpret the video through the law of this land which means the SCOTUS AND the US Constitution. In those veins, reasonable obviously means with warrant and probable cause. You have to be capable of reading the Amendment to admit this but you're disabled.
heymisterderp 2 days ago
@heymisterderp in FACT, i said simply that 'this is what the 4th amendmen covers', and it does NOT cover 'all worldly possessions' or 'house and all lands', etc.
the scotus in many cases (such as 'hester' and 'dunn' has repeatedly said that 'open fields' need neither be 'open' nor 'fields', and are not protected by the 4th. 'dunn' laid out guidelines to establish curtilage.
i said to YOU (and others) if you want 'everything' protected, get up off your asses and PUSH FOR A 28th AMENDMENT.
neoconsnightmare3 1 day ago
@neoconsnightmare3: We can lead a horse to water, but we cannot make him drink.
DavidForthoffer 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DavidForthoffer ya know?
neoconsnightmare3 1 day ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DavidForthoffer I can't make trolls who have made commenting on this video for two years an intrinsically important part of their lives to stop drinking the kool aid and wake up to the fact that this case is an egregious violation of the 4th amendment because 1)there is no warrant 2)there is no probable cause 3)this isn't an open field 4)this is curtilage 5)this is obstruction 6)there is obviously a reasonable expectation of privacy when trespass is necessary to see.
heymisterderp 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heymisterderp saying we're 'trolls' and that we're making this video 'intrinsically important' won't 'shame' us off. you failed again. YOU'RE making OUR correct interpretations of the 4th, per your logic, 'intrinsically important' to you.
health inspectors in indiana don't need a warrant if they give due notice; we don't know if she did or didn't. if she didn't, she's trespassing...but it wouldn't be FELONY trespassing.
no 4th violation, as it covers persons, houses, papers and effects only
neoconsnightmare3 1 day ago
@heymisterderp: You are definitely wrong on (3) re open field, (5) re obstruction, and (6) re privacy. That makes your other points irrelevant.
Several times I have explained WHY the U.S. Supreme Court would rule this an "open field", but you don't learn. Instead, you invent claims unsupported by the U.S. Supreme Court.
We can lead a horse to water, but we cannot force it to drink.
DavidForthoffer 1 day ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DavidForthoffer No, your claiming what is now 1000+ times on this video that the blatantly obvious points I'm making are "wrong" don't make them wrong. The Supreme Court would not rule this an open field because it's closed off from view from outside the property. This is private property blocked completely from view by structures legally defined as House under 4th amendment rights. You are bereft of common sense to foolishly deny the 4th's relevance here.
heymisterderp 1 day ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DavidForthoffer You are deranged to keep baselessly claiming that this isn't obstruction because you don't understand the meaning of the word. A fence is not the only thing capable of obstructing. A human being can too and if this video doesn't display obstructing, nothing does. You have wasted years of your life blathering untruths on this video and I know that taking over two years of your life away hurts you but you've wasted a lot of time.
heymisterderp 1 day ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DavidForthoffer Of course this is privacy. This is private property that you cannot observe from the road without trespassing on it. DUH! Human beings don't have x-ray vision and you do not understand nor will you allow yourself to understand what constitutes reasonable expectation of privacy. Anyone could be having sex with their lovers behind that shed and here comes a government official walking around the corner of it in the most egregious violation of privacy imaginable
heymisterderp 1 day ago
@heymisterderp: You fail to see the difference between YOUR reasonable expectation of privacy and what the U.S. Supreme Court regards as constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy. You EXPECTING privacy does not mean the Constitution criminalizes people who violate your expectations. Read the U.S. Supreme Court case Katz v. United States (1967)
DavidForthoffer 1 day ago 14
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DavidForthoffer LOL I could say the same thing of you. You fail to see the difference between YOUR reasonable expectation of privacy and what the SCOTUS regards as constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy. Katz verifies 4th protected privacies to specifically include conversations, public places, and physical intrusions. Jerking off to yet another court case as if it discounts anything I've said regarding this video is par for your course but irrelevant.
heymisterderp 1 day ago
@heymisterderp: Katz does NOT specifically include all conversations, all public places, and all physical intrusions. You cannot find any quote from Katz that supports any of your claims.
DavidForthoffer 1 day ago 22
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DavidForthoffer No, I can't find any finding in Katz that supports your claim. There you go again, putting the word "all" into my mouth when I never said it. Nothing about Katz is relevant to your prattling nonsense that the 4th doesn't apply to this video. My claims about Katz are accurate as given right out of the encyclopedia. You have a serious problem with the US Constitution. Get help for that.
heymisterderp 1 day ago
@heymisterderp: You say "Katz verifies 4th protected privacies to specifically include conversations...". That can only mean ALL conversations or SOME conversations. Meaning ALL is forthright, meaningful, and false. Meaning SOME is trivial and useless. But you, no doubt, will refuse to say what you mean.
DavidForthoffer 23 hours ago 25
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DavidForthoffer Well then take trivial and useless which is the explanation for why it's irrelevant to this video; hence you're desperate and grasping at every straw you can get your grubby nubbies on trying in your two-year addiction to this video attempting to violate the Constitution.
heymisterderp 21 hours ago
@heymisterderp lol...well, i and david (and pafoonik too) allegedly have a 'two year addiction' but you have a week old addiction which, per your logic, is no better.
i noticed the times you posted...10 hours ago, 9 hours ago, 5 hours ago. you gonna get some sleep?
and spamming me and david...for shame. pafoonik saw that too. i noticed that for all your interest in this topic, you spammed us. how sad. don't want those dissenting points of view?
neoconsnightmare3 21 hours ago 38
This has been flagged as spam show
@neoconsnightmare3 Spammed you? You need to look through the comments of this video for the past year. You are the living embodiment of spam. Spanked you is more like it. Life is short. Anyone so obsessed with bleating about this video and how the US Constitution isn't violated by the actions on it for over two years now, perhaps over three years, needs to get a life.
heymisterderp 21 hours ago
@heymisterderp said, "Well then take trivial and useless which is the explanation for why it's irrelevant to this video".
Thanks for confirming that your original claims about what Katz protects are trivial and useless.
DavidForthoffer 20 hours ago 38
This has been flagged as spam show
@DavidForthoffer Trivial and useless for discussion of this video, yes, which is precisely why you should have never brought it up in the first place. Nice work hiding a constitutional view here, by the way. The sudden 6 negative ratings on all of my comments is just pathetic. You anti-Constitution-agenda bots have no respect for the 1st Amendment either; how predictable.
heymisterderp 20 hours ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You two have been trolling this video for close to two years now, rubbing each others prostates and insulting everyone who comes here who disagrees with you. Based on the entirety of your comments you believe that only a fence can secure 4th amendment rights in this case and that is simply not true. Neither one of you statists are capable of understanding that obstruction is not limited to fences, obstruction by human being is relevant to the 4th. Do homework; you people desperately need it.
heymisterderp 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heymisterderp okay, you're repeating your 'troll' and 'two years' idiocy, and simply added 'rubbing each others' prostates'? uh, that's odd.
back to your failings: prove that the land in question is curtilage, per the SCOTUS' guidelines in 'dunn'.
you can't.
there was no fence to block entry to the land from public areas;
there was nothing to block the view of the land from public areas;
that land CLEARLY was not used for the 'intimate nature of the household';
it MAY be deemed 'close'.
neoconsnightmare3 1 day ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@neoconsnightmare3 I NEVER said ALL, you statist liar. Quit putting words in my mouth I never said. How many times must you get beaten in the skull and reminded of what I never said? You're a desperate liar who has to put the same word in my mouth 10 times so you have 10 things to say in reply to me because you're vapid of substance. This isn't an open field you cluebag because you can't see what you want to see from outside the property. Get a legal clue.
heymisterderp 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heymisterderp i quoted you verbatim...you said i finally 'conceded' that 'land' was protected.
i told you i conceded nothing.
you said you never said i conceded.
you lied, twice in an hour's period of time. i'll bring back the quotes for you. don't worry.
now that your latest diversion has failed like all others:
PROVE that the land in question meets 3 of the 4 guidelines of 'curtilage', as laid out by the SCOTUS in 'dunn'.
you can't.
neoconsnightmare3 1 day ago
@DavidForthoffer Who told you that landscaping isn't "intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and privacies of life"?" Where's that list you are now implying that you have. I can't wait to read it. That's not in the 4th if we read what it says and interpret it as so. What is you peoples' problems with a warrant. GET A GD'ED WARRANT. IT'S NOT THAT DIFFICULT.
heymisterderp 2 days ago
@heymisterderp you made a LOT of posts, none of which are correct.
i know what curtilage is, and more importantly, the SCOTUS knows, and laid out guidelines.
you seem to think that if you simply SAY something, it'll be true. that's not the case.
you seem to think that the rest of the world CARES about what you think. it doesn't.
the 4th amendment STILL only covers 'persons, houses, papers and effects'.
'effects' are NOT 'real property'.
the SCOTUS in 'hester' and 'dunn' agree with me.
neoconsnightmare3 2 days ago
@neoconsnightmare3 Every post I've written so far is correct. You have nothing backing up your assertions that the 4th doesn't apply to this video. No they don't agree with you. When you're so emotionally disabled from understanding what's protected by the 4th you run to the SCOTUS and you still can't deal with the fact that this video's search is unconstitutional. The 4th doesn't specify where those persons, houses, papers and effects must be. Get a warrant, 4th-less.
heymisterderp 2 days ago
If a search has probable cause AND a warrant, is it EVER unreasonable? Explain.
heymisterderp 3 days ago
@heymisterderp: No. Please confine this conversation to what I said.
Pafoofnik1 3 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 I'm not interested in confining this conversation to what you said. If you don't have probable cause, you don't get a warrant. If you don't get a warrant, you can't snoop around someone's property that you can't see from the road. It's moronic thinking like yours which encourages a closed society. You (unwittingly?) want to build walls and build fences and lock people into their houses afraid to have parties, afraid to live their lives, afraid of their government.
heymisterderp 3 days ago
@heymisterderp said: "I'm not interested in confining this conversation to what you said. "
OK. Just don't expect me to participate when you stray off topic.
Like now where you just want to attack a person for agreeing with you. Yeas, agree. You would realize this if you read my first two comments or so to you.
Pafoofnik1 3 days ago
@heymisterderp you said this to pafoonik: " I'm not interested in confining this conversation to what you said. "
you seem to think what YOU think/believe/like matters? it doesn't. what DOES matter is:
1) what the constitution says the 4th protects (persons, houses, papers and effects) from UNREASONABLE searches;
2) what the SCOTUS said in several cases like 'dunn' and hester' about how not all land is protected, only curtilage, and how they defined 'curtilage'.
neoconsnightmare3 2 days ago
@neoconsnightmare3 Several cases protect land. I never made the claim that ALL land is covered. You can keep pouring that ditz kool aid till the cows come home and you're still not going to understand that both the Constitution AND the SCOTUS back up everything I've said here so far. How dare you make the insolent baseless claim that somehow effects aren't on one's own property so therefore it's not unreasonable? GET A WARRANT AND HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO GET IT.
heymisterderp 2 days ago
@heymisterderp "Several cases protect land. I never made the claim that ALL land is covered. "
okay...so why does the land in the video get covered by the 4th? per 'dunn', it fails AT LEAST three of four guidelines.
answer the question. since this was land that was easily accessed from the road, easily seen from the road, and has NO INTIMATE NATURE OF THE HOUSEHOLD associated with it (and seemingly too far from the house), per 'dunn' it fails to be considered curtilage.
neoconsnightmare3 2 days ago
@neoconsnightmare3 So now you're back to conceding that land is indeed protected by the 4th amendment so you can put down all your "real estate" kool aid for good now?
At least three of the four? No, it fails one of the four, and where did Dunn say it must pass four of the four?
heymisterderp 2 days ago
@heymisterderp no, i NEVER said that land is indeed protected by the 4th. you're a liar.
i said what i said all along: land is NOT considered 'effects'.
i also have been saying that CURTILAGE is covered. i and david have been saying that 'dunn' lays out guidelines as to what 'curtilage' is.
this video shows the land she inspected failed at least 3 of 4.
no intimate household nature of that land, can be seen from public areas, and nothing to stop access from public areas.
neoconsnightmare3 2 days ago
@neoconsnightmare3 I never said you said that land is indeed protected by the fourth. That is another lie. Curtilage is land. How can you be this stupid??? NO you're wrong, it doesn't fail 3/4 it clearly passes at least 2. You unconstitutional wall builders are pathetic.
heymisterderp 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heymisterderp you're a liar. here's where you said it:
@neoconsnightmare3 So now you're back to conceding that land is indeed protected by the 4th amendment so you can put down all your "real estate" kool aid for good now?
At least three of the four? No, it fails one of the four, and where did Dunn say it must pass four of the four?
heymisterderp 9 minutes ago
page 2. LOL...what a liar you are.
neoconsnightmare3 2 days ago
@neoconsnightmare3 You don't know what curtilage means, you don't know what unreasonable is, you haven't read the amendment as written, you're putting words in my mouth I NEVER said to impotently claim I'm wrong, you don't even understand the court cases you cite. Everything you've bothered me to talk about so far has been in grievous error on your part.
heymisterderp 2 days ago
@Pafoofnik1: FYI, I just want to let you know that it is a pleasure to discuss issues with YOU. You are obviously an intelligent person who cares about our rights as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. You are not only capable of reading and understand U.S. Supreme Court decisions, you DO. Our discussions are short and interesting because we stick to the issues and try our best to understand the Court.
I wish all posters were of your caliber.
DavidForthoffer 3 days ago
@DavidForthoffer: LOL. I was pretty sure I was right when I first watched this video. You tasked me to prove I was right. So I did what it seems few do here...
I researched.
I found that I was wrong, in this case. I found that I think she has the law on her side in this case.
I believe the law is unconstitutional. I think we disagree a bit on this. No problem. After all, we're both adults here.
Pafoofnik1 3 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 Having an unconstitutional "law" on your side isn't saying much. She had to give notice and she gave notice the day before. Giving notice doesn't replace consent. If she isn't given permission to trapse on his property the 4th amendment applies.
heymisterderp 3 days ago
@heymisterderp: LOL. What makes you think it's on my side?
Please, please, please read all of what I am writing.
It looks to me like you just want to pick a fight here, with a person that actually agrees with your base belief.
Pafoofnik1 3 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 I've read all of what you're writing. Once you understand that the Constitution is the law, then when you think something is unconstitutional you will understand that under the current law, doing it is not allowed. You do not turn the Constitution off when it's convenient to do so. It's always in force. It's perpetual.
heymisterderp 3 days ago
@heymisterderp: I didn't turn the Constitution off when it's convenient to do so.
I do, however, think the Indiana law that allows her to do this is unconstitutional.
I also realize that this law is in force, until stricken or overruled in court.
Are you getting it yet?
Pafoofnik1 3 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 Indiana law does not supplant or replace the US Constitution. I don't even know what law you're talking about. Giving notice? Notices authorize nobody without consent. Try again. The Indiana Constitution gives him the same protection that the US Constitution does. Any and all unconstitutional laws should be challenged at all times precisely because they're illegal. If you think this is unconstitutional (you do) then respect the law and stop looking for excuses not to.
heymisterderp 3 days ago
@heymisterderp: Thanks for saring your thought on this.
Pafoofnik1 3 days ago
@heymisterderp: State law, where it does not conflict with the state or federal constitution, certainly MAY authorize entry.
DavidForthoffer 3 days ago
@DavidForthoffer And in this case, it conflicted with both, so your point is irrelevant.
heymisterderp 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heymisterderp said, "And in this case, it conflicted with both, so your point is irrelevant."
I don't know what "it" is, or which point I was making.
DavidForthoffer 3 days ago
@heymisterderp: You invented that. This video shows no evidence that she gave notice the day before.
For all we know, she gave notice 30 days ago, came the day before and was refused entry, then came back this day with backup.
DavidForthoffer 3 days ago
@DavidForthoffer No I didn't invent that, yes the video does.
If you watch the video he says that she was there the day before. That would have been giving notice. He already knew that she was there to search and he obviously didn't give her consent the first time. She came back with Cooper.
heymisterderp 3 days ago
@heymisterderp
From posts elsewhere, we have learned that the person living there was the videographer's son. The videographer was the landowner.
Why did the videographer show up there the day before when he didn't live there?
I think it was because he HAD gotten notice of the visit some time before, and showed up on the day mentioned in the notice.
DavidForthoffer 3 days ago
@DavidForthoffer The day before this video was filmed may well have been the search date and he refused to allow her to search then. She returned the next day with a police officer. The date of the notice is irrelevant to the law. Notices don't give people authority. Consent is still required under the 4th Amendment. This landowner handled the situation appropriately. Lazy inspectors who can't get warrants are regrettable.
heymisterderp 3 days ago
@Pafoofnik1: Right. WE are both adults here ("adult" in the sense of "mature", not years).
Our disagreements are generally around the "edges" of the law. One of us does not contradict clear holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court, then support the contradiction only by means of rehashing and ad hominem attacks.
DavidForthoffer 3 days ago
@DavidForthoffer: OK. Are you saying that I am directing ad hominem attacks at you? If, so, then they are not intentional.
Pafoofnik1 3 days ago
@Pafoofnik1: Sorry, I didn't mean that. Maybe instead of saying "One of us does not contradict ..." I should have said "Neither of us contradicts ..."
DavidForthoffer 3 days ago
@DavidForthoffer: No worries.
Pafoofnik1 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm not rephrasing anything. Read the damn Amendment and then apply it as it's written. Probable cause. Warrant. Problem? Then you don't care about what the Constitution says.
heymisterderp 3 days ago
“House” includes:
(1) structures used as residences, including those used temporarily, such as a hotel room;
(2) buildings attached to the residence, such as a garage;
(3) buildings not physically attached to a residence, e.g., a shed;
(4) the curtilage of the home, which is the land immediately surrounding and associated with the home, such as a backyard.
That is what the 4th Amendment protects and thus it obviously includes land. Every denial here is another error.
heymisterderp 3 days ago
@heymisterderp yes, we discussed 'curtilage'. 'curtilage' isn't mentioned in the fourth. only 'house, persons, papers, effects'.
it took SEVERAL SCOTUS rulings to get to a point of helping to DEFINE what curtilage is.
proximity to home;
intimate nature of the land;
ease of access from public areas;
how easily viewed from public areas;
the land in the video failed at least THREE of the FOUR, and depending on how close it was to the actual house, MAYBE the fourth.
neoconsnightmare3 2 days ago
Comment removed
heymisterderp 3 days ago
So based on the US v. Jones, we don't even regard a person's subjective expectation of privacy anymore to know that the 4th Amendment applies to government trespassory searches of a person's property. Cluelessly trying to deny the 4th Amendment right as it applies is so pathetic it's laughable.
heymisterderp 3 days ago
Telling me that "nobody "cares how I apply the reading of the 4th amendment stands in pathetic blindness to the body of comments on this thread. Don't disserve yourself with lies trying to speak for others. You're enormously outnumbered on this one. Saying that "everyone" agrees with my interpretation is far closer to the truth.
heymisterderp 4 days ago
@heymisterderp no, and i should rephrase what i said: the supreme court in dunn and hester don't care how you interpret the constitution's 4th amendment.
the state of indiana, where this happens, doesn't seem to care.
don't worry...i could say 'the 4th means that police and government inspectors have to show up in pink tutus and call me daddy', but none of the above would care if i interpret it as such.
really? i'm 'outnumber'? what are the numbers and objectively prove them.
neoconsnightmare3 3 days ago
@neoconsnightmare3 No they don't seem to care. And the lack of caring doesn't create the reality unless we let lazy wusses determine the bounds of our liberty in this country. I'm not going to agree with you shoulder shrugged appeasers and legal pussies who are hellbent on finding any scrap of BS they can cling to, to destroy the Bill of Rights. You're making a fool of yourself. The 4th applies to the video above, whether you wet your diapers or not.
heymisterderp 3 days ago
@heymisterderp you do play diversion games, don't you?
as i challenged you earlier, since you say 'everyone agrees' with you and i'm 'enormously outnumber on this one' , please prove those numbers in whole numbers and percentages.
i'd also like to see your information gathering methodology, as well as the margins of error (in percentage points).
you'll also have to show me the credentials of the info gathering person /agency and when it was published.
you have your orders, soldier.
neoconsnightmare3 3 days ago
@neoconsnightmare3 Find someone here who agrees with you that the 4th doesn't include property as in land. You are already proven wrong to think it doesn't when there's an "open field" exception to warrants. The credential that is required for you to accept such knowledge is the encyclopedia. If you're so blind in denial that you're going to start denying the encyclopedia then you have a problem so severe even I can't help you.
heymisterderp 3 days ago
@heymisterderp david and chief. i found them.
when was i allegedly 'proven wrong'? not by you. you never proved anything...in fact, you ADMITTED your messed up view of the 4th was your opinion. try again, princess.
no matter what you say, or how many times you say it, the 4th STILL only protects 'unreasonable searches and seizures' of 'persons, houses, papers and effects'. not 'all worldly goods.
you not understanding english is not my problem. and the SCOTUS backs me up.
neoconsnightmare3 3 days ago
@heymisterderp said: "Find someone here who agrees with you that the 4th doesn't include property as in land."
I'm right here. I think it's wrong. I don't think it's constitutional. But I know some guys in robes have decided that some oPark's and Wildlife guys can come onto my land on occasion.
Yup, I think it sucks.
Pafoofnik1 3 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 If it isn't Constitutional then it isn't excluded in the 4th Amendment because the part of the Constitution that applies to this IS the 4th Amendment. Yes, it does suck. But, there are plenty of guys in robes who include private property such as land, so it isn't the 4th Amendment that did anything, it was just guys in robes.
heymisterderp 3 days ago
@heymisterderp: Well, swing on by and tell these P&W guys what you just told me and see how far you get.
It will be kind of like how far the guy got in this video.
Like I said. I think it's wrong, but it's the law until it's stricken or the government behind the law is removed.
Pafoofnik1 3 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 Sometimes you win sometimes you don't. That's no reason not to fight. And no "it" won't necessarily be how far the guy in the video got.
The people who wrote the Constitution, should you happen to care, were very clear about people taking liberty back from the government. That's the whole point.
heymisterderp 3 days ago
@heymisterderp: I agree. You should be able to understand this if you take into account everything I wrote, not just apparently focus on what I said that you didn't like.
Pafoofnik1 3 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 Shrugging your shoulder and picking rhetorical problems with me is no way to defend your liberty let alone understand what the 4th Amendment protects. It protects private property from government searches. Denying this is ludicrous. There would be no "open field" exception to needing a search warrant, there would be no concept of curtilage, there would be no interpretation of the expectation of privacy in our yards.
heymisterderp 3 days ago
@heymisterderp: Please debate what I say, not what you guess I said.
I never denied that the 4th Amendment doesn't protect property from governmental searches. You just think I did.
For proof of this, simple quote exactly where I said that the 4th doesn't protect private property from searches.
You won't find it because you made it up.
Pafoofnik1 3 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 I SAID:"Find someone here who agrees with you that the 4th doesn't include property as in land."
YOU SAID: "I'm right here."
Did I just think you said that? Or did you really say it? Don't tell me I made that up or you're lying.
heymisterderp 3 days ago
@heymisterderp: Yes I said that.
Pafoofnik1 3 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 Then don't lie about it again.
heymisterderp 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heymisterderp said: I SAID:"Find someone here who agrees with you that the 4th doesn't include property as in land."
LOL. You KNOW that I agree with Pafoofnik that the 4th doesn't include real property, except houses and its curtilage.
If YOU read and understood the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Dunn (1987) you would agree with us, too.
DavidForthoffer 3 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 heya pafoonik. that fool has NOTHING to back up his assertations. funny , isn't he?
remember that fool that said a few months back he was allegedly in law school and that he spoke with the ACLU in indiana? he got quiet when challenged.
wonder if heymisterdipshit is him?
neoconsnightmare3 2 days ago
@neoconsnightmare3: I guess it's a matter of viewpoint.
Some people think the lady cannot constitutionally do what she did.
Some people think the lady can constitutionally do what she did
I I guess just one guy thinks she can't constitutionally do what she did, but legally can until the law is stricken.
What I don't agree with is all of the profanity and cursing. I guess anonymity tends to bring out the worst in people, that are not very mature.
Pafoofnik1 2 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 we can disgree. i just know what 'effects' are and they are NOT 'real estate'.
heymistress, i BELIEVE, is that same dolt that pretended to be a law student a few months back. he/she/it comes back under different names. i find them hilarious.
neoconsnightmare3 2 days ago
@neoconsnightmare3 So you've been trolling this comments board for a couple of months. Why does destroying the 4th mean so much to you? Get a life.
heymisterderp 2 days ago
@heymisterderp now i'm 'trolling'? what proof do you have, kid? pafoonik, who somewhat agrees with you, has been on as long as me?
you've been 'trolling' for a week.
do you have a point?
am i allegedly 'destroying the 4th'? prove it.
you STILL aren't allowed to say something and expect the rest of the world to accept it.
neoconsnightmare3 2 days ago
@neoconsnightmare3 Yes if you were here months ago taking your unconstitutional piss you just admitted you have a strange emotional attachment to this video. I think that's pathetic. You're destroying the 4th because you're dishonestly using every stinking little false claim you can think of to render it irrelevant here and you're a failure.
heymisterderp 2 days ago
@heymisterderp yep, and i return each time some knucklehead tries to say the guy above was right AND attacks me.
again, PROVE your case that the video shows three of four of dunn's suggestions.
quote my alleged 'false claim' and prove it's false.
the 4th STILL only protects against 'unreasonable searches' of 'persons, houses, papers and effects'.
NOT 'all worldly possessions'. you can't get around that.
neoconsnightmare3 2 days ago
@neoconsnightmare3 No you attack them just like you attacked me. The 4th applies here and your wet diapers are going to soak and stink and your lies aren't going to serve you.
Here you go again with more lies with "all worldly possessions". The legal definition of house includes curtilage which applies here. I've pointed out all of your false claims; read what I write.
heymisterderp 2 days ago