(a) A trespassory test is satisfied: (1) a “trespass” occurs, (2) the trespass is onto an enumerated item listed in the Fourth Amendment (“persons, houses, papers, or effects”), and (3) it occurs with the intent “to find something or to obtain information”
OR
(b) The Katz test is satisfied: the government conduct violates a subjective expectation of privacy and an objective reasonable expectation of privacy
@AudiRS4Life: You left out the context of Orin Kerr's doctrine—an audience of legal scholars who KNEW that the Katz test only applies to areas protected by the Fourth Amendment ("persons, houses, papers, and effects"). Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court goes on to say, "Katz did not repudiate that understanding" in United States v. Jones (2012).
In other words, since she did not infringe on areas protected by the 4th, this new doctrine is irrelevant to this video.
@RedTailedTuna said: I can`t find anywhere Indiana code 35-42 on trespassing
I don't know where you got 35-42. Indiana's trespassing code is 35-43-2-2. It exempts many officials from trespassing, NOT including health inspectors. In other words, 35-43-2-2 and 16-20-1-23 contradict each other. It seems courts don't punish inspectors under 35-43-2-2 if they satisfy 16-20-1-23. Makes sense to me.
If he has posted a sign then she even under Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 she needs a probable cause to check his property. So if there is no health epidemic disease etc in the area she doesn`t have the right to enter the property. (Even as a health inspector)
@RedTailedTuna: The problem with citizens arrest is that if you are wrong, YOU can be jailed for an offense such as battery or false confinement.
Suppose, for example, you were not aware of Indiana Code 16-20-1-23, which allows health inspectors to enter private property to investigate disease, after due notice. Suppose she had given due notice. Then she had the right to be there, and your fumbling citizens arrest would only land you in big trouble.
in code 16-20-1-23B The health inspector has this right for ``what is reasonable and necessary for prevention and suppression of disease.`` The guy is digging a hole which is not a reasonable grounds for the entry onto his property.
@RedTailedTuna: Congratulations on being one of the very few who actually read the law!
However, your quote is what the inspector may do AFTER the inspection. The code does not specify required grounds for entry.
In this case, according to posts elsewhere by the videographer, she cited him for a sewer pipe coming from the trailer emptying out onto bare ground, even though he said the pipe was not connected to the home's sewer system. Maybe she learned that from a tip.
No where does it say what happened as a result of this. Was this brought to court? did the guy win? It happened a while back and it is bullshit to post this with out a fallow up video.
Ron Paul is so much better than the other candidates, can't New Hampshire see it? I mean Mitt Romney? OH, please no. Newt Gingrich? Are you kidding me? Wake up New Hampshire! Don't you want an honest veteran who happens to be a doctor and knows the law. Don't be afraid of Freedom. Google Ron Paul's campaign, see the facts. Lady Liberty has a knight in shining armor in Ron Paul. Let's not elect any more toads showering them with taxpayer money! Help free this country from the power hungry jerks.
Freedom from unreasonable searches: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
@AudiRS4Life: Good point. I had actually mis-remembered where certain restrictive U.S. laws (such as searches without a warrant within 100 miles of a border) had been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
It has been LOWER courts that have struck down many provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. See the Wikipedia article on the Act for references.
@Bellecri: You sound like yet another person who believes the Fourth Amendment protects ALL property. It does not. It protects only "persons, houses, papers, and effects". She did not search any of those. She did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights.
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.
I was a health officer for 12 years doing exactly the same job as this woman. The reality is that this man would have put in a better septic system or one at least as good as a contractor's, they're actually simple to install, for much less money than a state approved system and without all of the aggravation that comes along with working with a government agency.. She's not protecting anyone. She's a public nuisance and menace. As soon as she crossed the line he should have knocked her out.
@suetheirasses: If the videographer had knocked out the health inspector, he would have no doubt have found out why the deputy was there.
The home's occupancy permit was not revoked because of the construction of a septic system. It was revoked because someone was living in it while having a sewer drain pipe emptying out onto bare ground.
@DavidForthoffer please stop saying he was having a sewer drain pipe emptying onto the ground when you have absolutely no documentable evidence of this. either cite a source or quit saying it. I could just as easily say that I saw Elvis and Michael Jackson riding a unicorn at the mall yesterday, but I doubt anyone would believe me.
Blatant violation of right to privacy. She came in contact with alot of private property. She took photos. lol I mean she even was asking a deputy for advice about your authority. Deputy Cooper just seemed oblivious to the constitutional argument the man was making. I see a lot of non professional activity here and I pray in this crooked nation that he won his case. Any govt worker needs to understand it is not your right to enter an American's property. Showing a badge isnt enough.
@Jononutoob: His case was dismissed. You seem to be yet another American who thinks the 4th Amendment protects all property from unreasonable searches without a warrant. It does not. It only protects "persons, houses, papers, and effects".
@DavidForthoffer And you couldnt interpret the constitution if your head was hung from it. Some would consider houses to be land. I would. I would also consider effects to be land. Actually because im so fucked up in the head, I would consider anything that man owns to be HIS PROPERTY. So yes I am another American who comprehends what laws in America are meant for. To protect the PROPERTY AND PRIVACY of all Americans. Also I dont "think" the 4th, I know the 4th protects an American's property.
@Jononutoob: Frankly, the courts care neither about your interpretation nor my interpretation. They care about the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation. For curtilage, they look to United States v. Dunn (1987).
@DavidForthoffer Well frankly, I dont care what the courts think. Im sure there are all sorts of precedents for them to infringe on my personal life. They can wave all the case files they want in my face. It wont help the agents they send to look around on peoples property. In this case the man in the video didnt get his gun, he thought he could win legally. Many Americans think the opposite way. If only politicians enforced the laws they write, THEY WOULD WRITE LESS OF THEM.
I.C. 35-43-2-2. A person who, without any contractual interest in a property, enters the property or dwelling without permission and who refuses to leave when asked, or who interferes with a person’s possession or use of property, commits the crime of Criminal Trespass, a Class A misdemeanor.
@AudiRS4Life said "... Case: 88A01-0608-CV-354 ..."
First, you left off the part that said, "this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except (concerrning this case)".
Second, you left off the part that that that interpretation was an AGREEMENT by the PARTIES, not a ruling by the judge.
Third, you forgot to explain that "WCHD" was Washington County Health Department, not La Porte County Health Department, which handled THIS case.
You left off the part about the numerous exceptions to this Criminal Trespass statutes. Sure, health inspectors are not on that list. But that just means that the laws are conflicting for such cases—Indiana Code 35-43-2-2 prohibits what Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 explicitly allows. That's an issue of law that I'll bet will always be resolved in favor of the health inspector. Perhaps that issue was raised in his suit that was dismissed.
IC 16-20-1-23 should be interpreted to require that the WCHD must obtain judicial permission prior to conducting a health inspection, unless there is permission or exigent circumstances.
Many people believe that the 4th Amendment protects ALL property, too. But it doesn't, as you know.
Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 is obviously subordinate to the 4th Amendment, and therefore does not allow a health inpsector to enter a home or its curtilage. But Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 does not conflict with the 4th Amendment concerning "open fields", such as entered by this health inspector.
"A doctrine established by the Supreme Court of the United States in Hester v. United States and reaffirmed in Oliver v. United States. It (the open fields doctrine), provides that the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution does not extend to UNOCCUPIED LANDS, EXCEPT IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING A HOME, where the right to privacy may reasonably be expected."
“Simply put, the curtilage is the area immediately outside one’s home. Traditionally, the Fourth Amendment was interpreted to protect not only the interior of a home, the area inside the four walls, but to also protect the area immediately outside the home: the curtilage. The term has included garages, driveways, cottages, and backyards for Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable searches and seizures”
@AudiRS4Life: "Simply put..." gives a definition that is neither the one used by the U.S. Supreme Court nor one espoused by any law enforcement agents.
People interested in the definition of 'curtilage' should read the U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Dunn (1987).
@AudiRS4Life: For me, it is not a matter of liking or disliking. It is what I think the law is. I do believe that the Open Fields Doctrine, as affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Dunn (1987) and other U.S. Supreme Court cases (which typically cite Dunn), is the law of the land.
@DavidForthoffer We have an agreement..."Open Fields Doctrine"...it is
We needed something UN-AMBIGOUS
Since the SCOTUS has established an extremely VARIABLE criterion to identify “curtilage”…consisting of 4 factors…where just 1 can satisfy OR 4 could be required
"Curtilage put simply is the area around a home where the occupants spend most of their home time living their day-to-day lives. This should include the front porch, driveway, front yard, the side yards, the backyard, the swimming pool, and any other area close to the house."
readers...notice the quotations...just setting the trap for these jokers ;)
"In situations where the police allege that what was searched was an open field, this has the practical effect of SHIFTING the argument from whether any given expectation of privacy is reasonable, TO whether the given place is actually an open field OR some other type of area like CURTILAGE."
"Curtilage put simply is the area around a home where the occupants spend most of their home time living their day-to-day lives. This should include the front porch, driveway, front yard, the side yards, the backyard, the swimming pool, and any other area close to the house."
@AudiRS4Life: Oops! That issue of the FBI Law Enforcement goes on to explain that a DIFFERENT definition of curtilage should actually be used. In fact, in directly quotes United States v. Dunn (1987).
@AudiRS4Life: The problem is that you did NOT quote the simple definition of curtilage for enforcement agencies. You didn't even quote it for the FBI! Instead, you quoted some guy's unfounded conclusion about what the U.S. Supreme Court meant.
@AudiRS4Life: So why is your "simple definition of curtilage for enforcement agencies" mentioned only ONE place on the web? And why did you pluck that from the middle of the article, instead of quoting the article's lead-off definition: "that area which harbors the "intimate activity associated with the 'sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life.'"
Oh! It is because the ACTUAL definition used by enforcement agencies does not match your peculiar view of this video.
@AudiRS4Life: You do a lot better job inventing wild claims than actually reading the U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Dunn (1987). There, they say that whether an area is curtilage and deserves the protection afforded the intimacies of home life depends on a combination of 4 factors: (1) nearness to home, (2) extent that access is block, (3) extent that view is blocked, and (4) evidence of home-like use.
Here, the areas absolutely flunk 3 of 4 factors. She did not search curtilage.
@DavidForthoffer To determine "open field" or "curtilage" is an ART...even the courts went back and forth...you think she searched "open field"...the MAJORITY think she searched "curtilage"
SCOTUS says (pertaining ‘4’ factors): "WE DO NOT SUGGEST that COMBINING these factors PRODUCES a finely tuned formula that, when mechanically applied, yields a "CORRECT" answer to ALL extent-of-curtilage questions"
The SERVANT shall BEWARE the 4th INCLUDING the property adjoining the structure.
@AudiRS4Life: If a thousand posters who have not read United States v. Dunn (1987) post that the health inspector here violated his 4th Amendment rights and almost all of a handful of posters who HAVE read Dunn post that the health inspector did not violate his 4th Amendment rights, then I am impressed by the Dunn posters. You, obviously, are not.
The problem with that approach is that in an actual trial, jurors would be taught the legal criteria for differentiating curtilage from "open fields".
Furthermore, if the jurors get it so wrong that their conclusion is not supported by the evidence, the case will be decided by an appellate court, where the judges understand curtilage issues far better than you or such jurors.
@AudiRS4Life: Oh, so could you please point out where in the video that access to the areas she visited were blocked, where view to those areas were blocked, and evidence of home-like use (not construction) that is in those areas?
@AudiRS4Life: It is illegal for me to trespass over curtilage to get to an open field to perform my warrantless search. Nevertheless, me behaving illegally does not automatically mean that evidence I find will be excludeded from trial.
@DavidForthoffer SCOTUS says (pertaining ‘4’ factors): "WE DO NOT SUGGEST that COMBINING these factors PRODUCES a finely tuned formula that, when mechanically applied, yields a "CORRECT" answer to ALL extent-of-curtilage questions"
Residential Property is protected by the 4th INCLUDING the LAND
@DavidForthoffer Do you value how the SCOTUS decision in DUNN is PRACTICED by government enforcement agencies...or do the enforcement agencies and their advising lawyers have it all wrong?
@DavidForthoffer Earlier you clam this RESIDENTIAL property fails SCOTUS factors 3 and 4...thus IS 'open field'
I respond...quoting:
SCOTUS says (pertaining ‘4’ factors): "WE DO NOT SUGGEST that COMBINING these factors PRODUCES a finely tuned formula that, when mechanically applied, yields a "CORRECT" answer to ALL extent-of-curtilage questions"
Where we can read...merely 1 factor can justify 'curtilage' of the home
@DavidForthoffer Do you value how the SCOTUS decision in DUNN is PRACTICED by government enforcement agencies...or do the enforcement agencies and their advising lawyers have it wrong?
Let me play devil's advocate, david - you feel comfortable with this woman perusing around someone's private property looking for violations in this way? Dont you think she should have at least quoted code?
I was rarely denied entry onto private property because I explained the situation thoroughly, and quoted all applicable law. The few times I was denied, I was able to gather all necessary information from public access (roads, driveways, parking lots), and from aerial photography.
@boggywoman: For all you know, she DID quote code ... in the "due notice" that she MAY have given.
She could have undoubtedly been more courteous and polite.
Personally, I think she (erroneously) regarded the visit the day before as "due notice", and could have been charged with both criminal and civil trespass. But I think the guy actually argued on 4th Amendment grounds, which is a red herring in this case.
@DavidForthoffer: I have revised my thinking about whether she probably trespassed. I know from other posts that the videographer was actually the landowner and not the tenant (who seems to have been his son). Why would the landowner show up the day before? I now think the likely reason was that he HAD gotten notice some time before (e.g. several weeks), and showed up because of the due notice.
So I think she complied with the "due notice" requirement, and did not trespass.
David, she did search an area protected under the 4th Amendment - private property. Even so, it is a shame if our right against unreasonable search and seizure is being degraded in this way, and I was an inspector. Its a fine line between a free state and a police state. But most disturbing to me is her unprofessional demeanor. She did not recite any code giving her the right to enter, did not provide him with any document, and wouldn't look directly at him. Unprofessional, and pathetic.
David, she did search an area protected under the 4th Amendment - private property. Even so, it is a shame if our right against unreasonable search and seizure is being degraded in this way, and I was an inspector. Its a fine line between a free state and a police state. But most disturbing to me is her unprofessional demeanor. She did not recite any code giving her the right to enter, did not provide him with any document, and wouldn't look directly at him. Unprofessional, and pathetic.
As a former environmental inspector, I can say this woman is indeed breaking the law - the incompetence and unprofessionalism from both the socially inept "inspector" and the equally inept deputy are an embarassment to watch. I entirely understood and respected the legal process for entry onto private property. It is always a shock to me that people who should understand trespass laws THOROUGHLY can be so clueless. You have a clearcut trespass case. Pursue, and update us.
@boggywoman: As a former environmental inspector, could you please explain WHY you think this woman is indeed breaking the law, considering that Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 allows health inspectors to enter private property to investigate disease, after due notice?
It is sometimes a shock to me that people claiming to be inspectors themselves who should understand trespass laws THOROUGHLY can be so clueless.
@DavidForthoffer U.S. Constitution, 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Constitutional law supercedes local and state law. I would like to see case law upholding this Indiana code.
@DavidForthoffer U.S. Constitution, 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Constitutional law superscedes local and state law. I would like to see case law upholding this Indiana code.
@DavidForthoffer Further, David - If permission is granted, an individual can search property. Thats why cops always ask permission before they "look around" in a car during a stop. If the owner says no, the officer can have the car towed to an impound lot and held until a warrant from the local court is issued. But there must be reasonable cause to issue said warrant. Unreasonable searches are the norm today. It is unfortunate.
Okay people, pay close attention. Something you need to know about the 4th amendment here. This is an administrative search. Not a warrantless police search. Notice the sheriff did not, and would not, come onto the property. Not even as a protective escort for the Health Inspector. The reason is because there are very different rules that apply for administrative searches. This has case law precedent on a Federal level to validate 4th amendment exclusion. Doesn't make it right. Just legal...
@247lifted: Administrative searches of private residential property to NOT get a special exemption from the 4th Amedment. They only get a special exemption FOR HEAVILY REGULATED INDUSTRIES such as prescription drugs, food processing, interstate commerce, etc..
The main point concerning the 4th Amendment for this video is that she did not search areas protected by the 4th Amendment.
: an inspection or search carried out under a regulatory or STATUTORY scheme esp. in PUBLIC OR COMMERCIAL premises and usu. to enforce compliance with regulations or laws pertaining to HEALTH, safety, or security.
Ref: US Supreme Court - Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967)
I dont want to live in a country where government agents and bureaucrats can wonder onto my property whenever the fuck they please. And those of u who do want this then i suggest moving to Cuba.
@Jermetrice: Not even in Indiana are government agents and bureaucrats are allowed to wander onto your property whenever they please. State laws against trespassing protect you.
However, such laws have exceptions for certain government agents in certain situations.
For example, Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 allows health inspectors to enter private property to investigate disease, after due notice. If this were you, and you got due notice, you could respond judicially before the visit.
@DavidForthoffer "For example, Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 allows health inspectors to enter private property to investigate disease, after due notice."
this statute only allows entry "to investigate disease." she never said she was there to investigate disease. her stated reason for her visit was "all I want to know is what you're doing." doesn't sound to me like she was there to investigate disease. why didn't she just state her reason for her visit to the owner when she first arrived?
@DavidForthoffer we can tell from the context of the video that she did NOT explain why she was there the day before. if she had, she would have said something along the lines of "I told you yesterday why I was here." he asked her several times what she wanted. "all I want to know is what you're doing" was her response. doesn't sound like probable cause to me, due notice or not.
@DavidForthoffer but 16-20-1-23 only allows her to enter to investigate disease, NOT for any other reason. she didn't mention any disease investigation. it appears as if she has no reason to be there, legitimate or otherwise. she's just on a fishing expedition.
@chieftp: Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 does not require her to mention disease at the time of the inspection. It only requires her to give "due notice", in which she presumably ought to mention how the inspection relates to disease.
If you'd like, we could agree that she probably did not give due notice (as the visit the day before was certainly not due notice), and was therefore probably trespassing.
@DavidForthoffer the statute may not spell out word for word a requirement for the inspector to explain the situation, but that's just common sense. here's how it should have gone - "hello, I'm Julie Wolfe with the Laporte County Health Department - here's my ID. I'm here to investigate (insert alleged violation here,) and will enter your property at this time under authority of statute (insert appropriate statute here.)" wouldn't that be reasonable, professional, courteous, appropriate, etc?
@chieftp: I agree that your proposed approach would have been reasonable, professional, courteous, appropriate, etc., but not necessarily legally required.
@chieftp The 4th Amendment supercedes all other laws preventing any goverment official from entering your property for any reason without just cause and a warrant. Period. She and the cops were wrong.
@outlawracer2229: You are mistaken in your understanding of the 4th Amendment.
The 4th Amendment does NOT protect "your property". It only protects "persons, houses, papers, and effects". As research will show, our Founding Fathers did indeed mean "persons, houses, papers, and effects" rather than "persons and their property" as you understand the 4th.
@DavidForthoffer@chieftp Let me simplify for you two fuckin goverment boneheads. Anyone comes on my property without my permission they will leave in a body bag.
@outlawracer2229 I don't know what a "goverment" bonehead is. but I'm of the opinion that she needed an administrative warrant to enter his property. but it is NOT a 4th amendment issue. and it is NOT related to sex trafficking as per the statutes the guy who made the video quoted. and no, you're not going to put anyone in a body bag who walks into your yard. get a grip.
@outlawracer2229 you didn't say what you would do, you just said something about someone leaving in a body bag. the only people who would murder someone for walking into their yard are toothless methheads who don't even own any property. you're an EMT and you're talking about putting someone in a body bag who walks into your yard uninvited? what kind of hiring standards do they have up there??? and if you're going to "defend" the constitution, you might want to actually read it first.
@outlawracer2229: Did you read the part of the U.S. Constitution where the 4th Amendment protects "persons, houses, papers, and effects", and NOT "persons and all their property"?
@outlawracer2229 you haven't actually said anything at all. you've obviously read things that aren't there, like so many others on here with the "I'd of shot the bitch" mentality. and I'm pretty sure "we the people" wouldn't want this guy's piss and shit in their well water. this is an administrative warrant issue on the state level, not a 4th amendment issue. yes, she should have had a warrant, but based on the state's requirement to have one, not a 4th amendment requirement.
@outlawracer2229 the 4th amendment doesn't "prevent any government official from entering your property for any reason without just cause and a warrant." that is NOT what the 4th amendment states.
So let me get this right. This guy had an open septic line right? This could contaminate the ground water supply to several private properties surrounding this property ? Is this guy trying to set up his own frivolous lawsuit?
@tualatin67 no it would not contaminate the ground water supply if all the wells where drilled right then no safety probs if there not then they deserve it
That cop is a FUCKING IDIOT! If you have nothing t hide you'll let her on your property, are you fucking kidding me?? Really? is this how fucking stupid police are these days? Talk about hiring the lowest common denominator, my god.
"There's more than corn in Indiana", alright, there's a bunch of fucking single-digit IQ cretins acting as police officers!
The problem is the property is POSTED therefore she needs a warrant. She can look from the road, take pictures from the road but to enter the property and gather evidence without a warrant? Any evidence gathered this way is not allowed in court.
@t3chk4: You are mistaking rights against trespassers with 4th Amendment rights. Those two rights are COMPLETELY separate.
You have 4th Amendment rights sleeping overnight in your tent while trespassing on someone else's property.
Conversely, you can press criminal and civil charges against police trespassing on your cornfield, even though they are not violating your 4th Amendment rights.
Evidence gathered while TRESPASSING is NOT excluded from court. See United States v. Dunn (1987).
cooper the cocksucker to much power protect and serve asshole. jullie the dumb bitch he shoud have dug a big hole coverd it and let them find it the hard way.
Can't believe the Constitution can be so easily bypassed. Just shows you you do need a fence. Why doesn't the health inspector get the warrant if they can do this??
@jimrydill1: The Constution was NOT bypassed here. See the U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Dunn (1987).
Your fence suggestion is EXCELLENT, because that would go a long way toward establishing the area inside the fence as "curtilage" and therefore protected by the 4th Amendment.
Since the 4th Amendment does not protect the areas she searched, Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 applies here, which allows health inspectors to enter private property to investigate disease, after due notice.
@DavidForthoffer your a retard.....she walked all the way into every nook and cranny of his property brazenly.....she was required to have a warrant and was allowed by a stupid trooper who thinks he IS THE CONSTITUTION to enter this mans private property...this was a flagrant trespass......arrogant trespassing...she needs A WARRENT BECAUSE THE OWNER SAID DO NOT TRESPASS.
@232323C: You are yet another person confusing 4th Amentment rights with rights against trespassers.
The two rights are COMPLETLY SEPARATE.
You have 4th Amendment rights inside your tent as you trespass on someone else's property.
Conversely, if police search your cornfield for evidence of a crime, that evidence CAN be used in court against you, even while you press civil and criminal trespassing charges against them, since the 4th only protects "persons, houses, papers, and effects".
@DavidForthoffer ok Mr perverter of words.....your a double talker......if a piece of property is clearly marked with visible NO TRESPASSING signs and a officer snoops onto your property at night to find evidence of a crime then his findings are called "THE FRUIT OF FORBIDDEN TREE" non admissible......DISMISSED...try again you grade school wanna be
@DavidForthoffer The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is an offspring of the Exclusionary Rule. The exclusionary rule mandates that evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation must be excluded from trial.
@232323C: You misunderstand the Exclusionary Rule. It ACTUALLY mandates that evidence obtained in violation of a person's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS must SOMETIMES be excluded.
Consider, for example, United States v. Dunn (1987). There, federal agents TRESPASSED about a HALF MILE onto private property, crossing over two fences, and arrived somewhat near Dunn's home. All that was considered CONSTITUTIONAL and their evidence was not suppressed.
Respond to this video... Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, evidence is also excluded from trial if it was gained through evidence uncovered in an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation. Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was established primarily to deter law enforcement from violating rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Respond to this video... fruit of the poisonous tree n. in criminal law, the doctrine that evidence discovered due to information found through illegal search or other unconstitutional means (such as a forced confession), may not be introduced by a prosecutor. The theory is that the tree (original illegal evidence) is poisoned and thus taints what grows from it.
@232323C: You argue that trespassing means that evidence must be excluded. That is certainly a REASONABLE argument. Indeed, Justices Brennan and Marshall agree with you in their dissent in Dunn.
Nevertheless, the law of the land is that trespassing does not trigger the Exclusionary Rule.
if she had reasonable suspicion, probable cause, authority, an anonymous tip or otherwise a reason for being there, she sure did a piss poor job of explaining why.
I hate to say it but you almost wish for an article that reads "man dies due to responders being unable to enter property from previous complaints about trespassing." lol, long news headline but you get the idea. Yes, health inspectors are emergency responders as well.
When health or safety is involved why be a jerk about it? It's one of those things where if this guy was dying or he had a child on someone's private property they'd be in danger because god forbid an official "trespasses" for the possible sake of him, a relative, or the public. If you're not hiding something then don't worry about it. If you act like the guy in this video you have way to much time on you're hand (probably from the handouts from taxpayers, like the ones doing the investigation.)
This guy is indeed an idiot. If I'm wrong please scan and post the paper work that has made you "rich" from this "trespassing." This idiot stopped someone from doing their job because he read a sentence or two from some regulation/law and now he's a lawyer, and think he doesn't have to go through the same processes as everyone else. If you can't show some evidence that the courts proved you're right then you're an idiot, well you an idiot either way but it's validated without proof.
@Christinekancan: The man, Raimundas Kirkus, didn't get rich from this trespassing. He sued the La Porte County Health Department but his case was dismissed.
This is why the world cannot be better. No one is considering why that idiot man is so aggressive and defensive. I am a Health Inspector and if it were me in my country i wud've slapped some notices on him for obstructing me. The Health Inspector is way too soft. I'm a female too but he wudnt get to say so much because i dont play. He could be practicing something at home which may be detrimental to the health of his community and environment. His property needs to be investigated.
@cuddlesam8 The guy's not an idiot, he's defending his rights. Without a warrant neither the officer or the health inspector can walk on his property without the landowners permission. The guys moving earth around his garden, it's nothing to do with the government or health and safety. It is exactly your kind of attitude that allows for breaches of privacy and freedom like this to happen.
@SpatialRiftUK: You are mistaking rights against trespassers with 4th Amendment rights.
The 4th Amendment protects "persons, houses, papers, and effects" from unreasonable searches without a warrant. She did not search any of those, and did not violate his 4th Amendment rights.
Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 allows health inspectors to enter private property to investigate disease, after due notice. We cannot tell whether she gave due notice, so we cannot tell whether she trespassed.
@SpatialRiftUK Do you know the history behind his property? Sometimes somethings hav been buried for christ's sake (bodies, hazardous chemicals and radioactives substances etc). Trust me, you have no idea some things that we encounter. You are ignorant of our reasons for investigations. So please dont consider it as some wild goose chase or privacy breach. My attitude is what protects you and your family from diseases and hazards. so please dont consider us enemies and cooperate for ur own sake.
@cuddlesam8: It turned out that he had a drain pipe emptying out onto bare ground. It seems that the home occupancy permit was revoked, and the tenant (the videographer's son?) was evicted.
SCOTUS said, "we believe that curtilage questions should be resolved with particular reference to four factors: the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by."
Only one of the four criteria (proximity) could possibly be used here.
@RetSquid Proximity, the tresspasser was less than 100 feet from the back of the trailer at the FARTHEST, at one point she was less than 10 feet away.
And (1) there was no enclosure. (2) There was nothing in the nature of privacy use. (3) There were no steps to ensure privacy, like a solid fence or wall.
So, UNITED STATES V. DUNN, 480 U. S. 294 (1987) DOES hold up and he has no case.
@RetSquid Nobody should be forced to have 50 foot high barbed wire fences to be protected by the 4th amendment.
By the law, you need a warrant to come onto someone's property, that's how the warrant law is written, PROPERTY, not curtilage.
By warrant law the search was illegal, and evidence obtained from that search was also illegal. The cop broke his own rules by refusing to call a superior and get a proper warrant.
If you want a COMPLETE right to privacy on your property, yes you need a big privacy fence.
By law you do NOT need a warrant to go on someone's property, the only things protected are: "your houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,".
There was no illegal seach or seizure either by the Indiana law or the Supreme Court rulings.
@NinjaRider777R said: "By the law, you need a warrant to come onto someone's property, that's how the warrant law is written, PROPERTY, not curtilage."
So the next time the meter reader stops by, I can ask him to see his warrant then?
***BREAKING NEWS***
Doctrine for 4th amendment “search”:
A search occurs either when
(a) A trespassory test is satisfied: (1) a “trespass” occurs, (2) the trespass is onto an enumerated item listed in the Fourth Amendment (“persons, houses, papers, or effects”), and (3) it occurs with the intent “to find something or to obtain information”
OR
(b) The Katz test is satisfied: the government conduct violates a subjective expectation of privacy and an objective reasonable expectation of privacy
AudiRS4Life 2 days ago
@AudiRS4Life: You left out the context of Orin Kerr's doctrine—an audience of legal scholars who KNEW that the Katz test only applies to areas protected by the Fourth Amendment ("persons, houses, papers, and effects"). Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court goes on to say, "Katz did not repudiate that understanding" in United States v. Jones (2012).
In other words, since she did not infringe on areas protected by the 4th, this new doctrine is irrelevant to this video.
DavidForthoffer 9 seconds ago
Comment removed
AudiRS4Life 2 days ago
I can`t find anywhere Indiana code 35-42 on trespassing
RedTailedTuna 1 month ago
@RedTailedTuna said: I can`t find anywhere Indiana code 35-42 on trespassing
I don't know where you got 35-42. Indiana's trespassing code is 35-43-2-2. It exempts many officials from trespassing, NOT including health inspectors. In other words, 35-43-2-2 and 16-20-1-23 contradict each other. It seems courts don't punish inspectors under 35-43-2-2 if they satisfy 16-20-1-23. Makes sense to me.
Indiana's Castle Law is 35-41-3-2.
DavidForthoffer 1 month ago
@DavidForthoffer He says in this video at 1:25 that under section 35-42 that`s where I got the number code from
RedTailedTuna 1 month ago
@RedTailedTuna: OK. You can see he mis-remembered the property Indiana Code number.
DavidForthoffer 1 month ago
If he has posted a sign then she even under Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 she needs a probable cause to check his property. So if there is no health epidemic disease etc in the area she doesn`t have the right to enter the property. (Even as a health inspector)
RedTailedTuna 1 month ago
@RedTailedTuna said, "If he has posted a sign..."
Oops! You invented that. Bzzzzt!
You cannot find anyplace in IC 16-20-1-23 that prohibits entry for any posted sign.
DavidForthoffer 1 month ago
Make a citizens arrest for criminal trespass and call 911 for police assistance, since it is an emergency line they have to respond.
RedTailedTuna 1 month ago
@RedTailedTuna: The problem with citizens arrest is that if you are wrong, YOU can be jailed for an offense such as battery or false confinement.
Suppose, for example, you were not aware of Indiana Code 16-20-1-23, which allows health inspectors to enter private property to investigate disease, after due notice. Suppose she had given due notice. Then she had the right to be there, and your fumbling citizens arrest would only land you in big trouble.
DavidForthoffer 1 month ago
in code 16-20-1-23B The health inspector has this right for ``what is reasonable and necessary for prevention and suppression of disease.`` The guy is digging a hole which is not a reasonable grounds for the entry onto his property.
RedTailedTuna 1 month ago
@RedTailedTuna: Congratulations on being one of the very few who actually read the law!
However, your quote is what the inspector may do AFTER the inspection. The code does not specify required grounds for entry.
In this case, according to posts elsewhere by the videographer, she cited him for a sewer pipe coming from the trailer emptying out onto bare ground, even though he said the pipe was not connected to the home's sewer system. Maybe she learned that from a tip.
DavidForthoffer 1 month ago
No where does it say what happened as a result of this. Was this brought to court? did the guy win? It happened a while back and it is bullshit to post this with out a fallow up video.
RedTailedTuna 1 month ago
I would have told the cop that she is not allowed to be on my property and then take her camera...
MillDoggRecords 1 month ago
@MillDoggRecords: You would have then no doubt have found out why the deputy was there...
Some people ARE allowed on your property in some situations, even when you tell them they are not allowed. Check out Indiana Code 16-20-1-23.
DavidForthoffer 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul is so much better than the other candidates, can't New Hampshire see it? I mean Mitt Romney? OH, please no. Newt Gingrich? Are you kidding me? Wake up New Hampshire! Don't you want an honest veteran who happens to be a doctor and knows the law. Don't be afraid of Freedom. Google Ron Paul's campaign, see the facts. Lady Liberty has a knight in shining armor in Ron Paul. Let's not elect any more toads showering them with taxpayer money! Help free this country from the power hungry jerks.
zentricky69 1 month ago
***BREAKING NEWS***
US Patriot Act
Freedom from unreasonable searches: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
AudiRS4Life 2 months ago
@AudiRS4Life: That is not "breaking news". That "news" is so old that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled many parts of it unconstitutional.
DavidForthoffer 2 months ago
@DavidForthoffer I must say...That is good to hear...However, You don't appear to be in true form...
Where are the supporting case laws?
AudiRS4Life 2 months ago
@AudiRS4Life: Good point. I had actually mis-remembered where certain restrictive U.S. laws (such as searches without a warrant within 100 miles of a border) had been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
It has been LOWER courts that have struck down many provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. See the Wikipedia article on the Act for references.
DavidForthoffer 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Quick summary of this situation (upvote this so people can actually see it):
Guy was installing an illegal septic system that was polluting groundwater
Health inspector has State Legislation allowing her onto his property without a writ
Guy took them to court, case was thrown out, and he was evicted from the property.
kylezo 2 months ago
So what happened with this incident? Did they get in trouble for violating your rights?
Bellecri 2 months ago
@Bellecri: You sound like yet another person who believes the Fourth Amendment protects ALL property. It does not. It protects only "persons, houses, papers, and effects". She did not search any of those. She did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights.
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 2 months ago
I was a health officer for 12 years doing exactly the same job as this woman. The reality is that this man would have put in a better septic system or one at least as good as a contractor's, they're actually simple to install, for much less money than a state approved system and without all of the aggravation that comes along with working with a government agency.. She's not protecting anyone. She's a public nuisance and menace. As soon as she crossed the line he should have knocked her out.
suetheirasses 3 months ago 2
@suetheirasses: If the videographer had knocked out the health inspector, he would have no doubt have found out why the deputy was there.
The home's occupancy permit was not revoked because of the construction of a septic system. It was revoked because someone was living in it while having a sewer drain pipe emptying out onto bare ground.
DavidForthoffer 3 months ago
@DavidForthoffer please stop saying he was having a sewer drain pipe emptying onto the ground when you have absolutely no documentable evidence of this. either cite a source or quit saying it. I could just as easily say that I saw Elvis and Michael Jackson riding a unicorn at the mall yesterday, but I doubt anyone would believe me.
chieftp 3 months ago
@chieftp and @ne014x: As you both should know, YouTube does not permit URLs to be posted here.
But searching for the following got top hits supporting what I said.
"Sun Jul 2, 2006 10:17" kirkus calling on the indiana militia
DavidForthoffer 3 months ago
you should have shot her.
007kclaw 3 months ago
For those that LOVE the SCOTUS...seems they're in trouble AGAIN
Headlines Read:
"Clarence Thomas Should Be Investigated For Nondisclosure, Democratic Lawmakers Say"
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
Blatant violation of right to privacy. She came in contact with alot of private property. She took photos. lol I mean she even was asking a deputy for advice about your authority. Deputy Cooper just seemed oblivious to the constitutional argument the man was making. I see a lot of non professional activity here and I pray in this crooked nation that he won his case. Any govt worker needs to understand it is not your right to enter an American's property. Showing a badge isnt enough.
Jononutoob 4 months ago
@Jononutoob: His case was dismissed. You seem to be yet another American who thinks the 4th Amendment protects all property from unreasonable searches without a warrant. It does not. It only protects "persons, houses, papers, and effects".
DavidForthoffer 3 months ago
@DavidForthoffer do you have a link to any of the case material or contact information.
ne014x 3 months ago
@DavidForthoffer And you couldnt interpret the constitution if your head was hung from it. Some would consider houses to be land. I would. I would also consider effects to be land. Actually because im so fucked up in the head, I would consider anything that man owns to be HIS PROPERTY. So yes I am another American who comprehends what laws in America are meant for. To protect the PROPERTY AND PRIVACY of all Americans. Also I dont "think" the 4th, I know the 4th protects an American's property.
Jononutoob 2 months ago
@Jononutoob: Frankly, the courts care neither about your interpretation nor my interpretation. They care about the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation. For curtilage, they look to United States v. Dunn (1987).
DavidForthoffer 2 months ago
@DavidForthoffer Well frankly, I dont care what the courts think. Im sure there are all sorts of precedents for them to infringe on my personal life. They can wave all the case files they want in my face. It wont help the agents they send to look around on peoples property. In this case the man in the video didnt get his gun, he thought he could win legally. Many Americans think the opposite way. If only politicians enforced the laws they write, THEY WOULD WRITE LESS OF THEM.
Jononutoob 2 months ago
@Jononutoob gotta say...I LIKE IT!!
AudiRS4Life 2 months ago
Who wants to do something about these corruptions?
Sign the petition for US Constitutional Amendment
Go To… GetMoneyOut (dot) com
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
***BREAKING NEWS***
Criminal Trespass:
I.C. 35-43-2-2. A person who, without any contractual interest in a property, enters the property or dwelling without permission and who refuses to leave when asked, or who interferes with a person’s possession or use of property, commits the crime of Criminal Trespass, a Class A misdemeanor.
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
@AudiRS4Life said "... Case: 88A01-0608-CV-354 ..."
First, you left off the part that said, "this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except (concerrning this case)".
Second, you left off the part that that that interpretation was an AGREEMENT by the PARTIES, not a ruling by the judge.
Third, you forgot to explain that "WCHD" was Washington County Health Department, not La Porte County Health Department, which handled THIS case.
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DavidForthoffer "that WASHINGTON COUNTY health inspectors need a warrant" ...and they ADHERE to Indiana Code 16-20-1-23
Well, help me out here...Are you saying for Indiana Code 16-20-1-23...LA PORTE COUNTY doesn't need a warrant...where WASHINGTON COUNTY does?
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AudiRS4Life said "I.C. 35-43-2-2..."
You left off the part about the numerous exceptions to this Criminal Trespass statutes. Sure, health inspectors are not on that list. But that just means that the laws are conflicting for such cases—Indiana Code 35-43-2-2 prohibits what Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 explicitly allows. That's an issue of law that I'll bet will always be resolved in favor of the health inspector. Perhaps that issue was raised in his suit that was dismissed.
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
***BREAKING NEWS***
Indiana Court of Appeals
Case: 88A01-0608-CV-354
IC 16-20-1-23 should be interpreted to require that the WCHD must obtain judicial permission prior to conducting a health inspection, unless there is permission or exigent circumstances.
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
***BREAKING NEWS***
UNITED STATES V. DUNN, 480 U. S. 294 (1987)
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY:
SCOTUS: "there is no business curtilage surrounding a barn lying within an open field."
However, the barn where commercial is PROTECTED
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AudiRS4Life said "Many believe..."
Many people believe that the 4th Amendment protects ALL property, too. But it doesn't, as you know.
Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 is obviously subordinate to the 4th Amendment, and therefore does not allow a health inpsector to enter a home or its curtilage. But Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 does not conflict with the 4th Amendment concerning "open fields", such as entered by this health inspector.
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
Open Fields Doctrine:
"A doctrine established by the Supreme Court of the United States in Hester v. United States and reaffirmed in Oliver v. United States. It (the open fields doctrine), provides that the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution does not extend to UNOCCUPIED LANDS, EXCEPT IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING A HOME, where the right to privacy may reasonably be expected."
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
What is Curtilage?
“Simply put, the curtilage is the area immediately outside one’s home. Traditionally, the Fourth Amendment was interpreted to protect not only the interior of a home, the area inside the four walls, but to also protect the area immediately outside the home: the curtilage. The term has included garages, driveways, cottages, and backyards for Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable searches and seizures”
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
@AudiRS4Life: "Simply put..." gives a definition that is neither the one used by the U.S. Supreme Court nor one espoused by any law enforcement agents.
People interested in the definition of 'curtilage' should read the U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Dunn (1987).
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
@DavidForthoffer what about the "Open Fields Doctrine"...Do you like that one?
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
@AudiRS4Life: For me, it is not a matter of liking or disliking. It is what I think the law is. I do believe that the Open Fields Doctrine, as affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Dunn (1987) and other U.S. Supreme Court cases (which typically cite Dunn), is the law of the land.
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
@DavidForthoffer We have an agreement..."Open Fields Doctrine"...it is
We needed something UN-AMBIGOUS
Since the SCOTUS has established an extremely VARIABLE criterion to identify “curtilage”…consisting of 4 factors…where just 1 can satisfy OR 4 could be required
Apparently, they need room to go either way…
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
Enforcement Agencies DEFINE Curtilage as follows:
"Curtilage put simply is the area around a home where the occupants spend most of their home time living their day-to-day lives. This should include the front porch, driveway, front yard, the side yards, the backyard, the swimming pool, and any other area close to the house."
readers...notice the quotations...just setting the trap for these jokers ;)
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"In situations where the police allege that what was searched was an open field, this has the practical effect of SHIFTING the argument from whether any given expectation of privacy is reasonable, TO whether the given place is actually an open field OR some other type of area like CURTILAGE."
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
Comment removed
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
Enforcement Agencies DEFINE Curtilage as follows:
"Curtilage put simply is the area around a home where the occupants spend most of their home time living their day-to-day lives. This should include the front porch, driveway, front yard, the side yards, the backyard, the swimming pool, and any other area close to the house."
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
@AudiRS4Life: You invented that, too. I doubt that you could prove that for even ONE law enforcement agency.
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
Comment removed
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
@DavidForthoffer FIRST SAYS: "You do a lot better job inventing wild claims"
THEN goes on to SAY: "I am saying you quoted it out of context. You took a somewhat vague introductory sentence and proclaimed it as THE definition."
NOW is AGAIN claiming "You invented that, too. I doubt that you could prove that for even ONE law enforcement agency"
I quoted "The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin" - April, 1998
"houses" includes curtilage in the 4th Amendment
"trespass onto curtilage is a SEARCH"
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
@AudiRS4Life: Oops! That issue of the FBI Law Enforcement goes on to explain that a DIFFERENT definition of curtilage should actually be used. In fact, in directly quotes United States v. Dunn (1987).
Nice try.
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
@DavidForthoffer I was just pointing out how you CRAZILY claimed "I INVENTED"...while previously, I quoted the FBI Bulletin...
NOW you are making a NEW claim..."I INVENTED"...while quoting the simple definition of curtilage for enforcement agencies
I didn't say IT came from the FBI Bulletin...
Tell me when you give up...
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
@DavidForthoffer I was just pointing out how you CRAZILY claimed "I INVENTED"...while previously, I quoted the FBI Bulletin...
NOW you are making a NEW claim..."I INVENTED"...while quoting the simple definition of curtilage for enforcement agencies
I didn't say IT came from the FBI Bulletin...
Tell me when you give up...
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
@AudiRS4Life: The problem is that you did NOT quote the simple definition of curtilage for enforcement agencies. You didn't even quote it for the FBI! Instead, you quoted some guy's unfounded conclusion about what the U.S. Supreme Court meant.
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
@AudiRS4Life: So why is your "simple definition of curtilage for enforcement agencies" mentioned only ONE place on the web? And why did you pluck that from the middle of the article, instead of quoting the article's lead-off definition: "that area which harbors the "intimate activity associated with the 'sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life.'"
Oh! It is because the ACTUAL definition used by enforcement agencies does not match your peculiar view of this video.
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
@DavidForthoffer CONGRATULATIONS!!
I knew you had it in you…especially with all that talk about “diligent research”…
So where did you find it? We can point the readers to the source
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
@AudiRS4Life: I Googled for ""Curtilage put simply is the area around a home where the occupants spend most of their home time living their".
But what is the point of providing a definition that no enforcement agency admits to using?
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
@DavidForthoffer why don't you post the source?
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
Comment removed
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
Supreme Court of the United States says:
For Fourth Amendment purposes, the area IMMEDIATELY surrounding the HOME, the curtilage, IS viewed as PART of the HOME
If an officer or agent TRESPASSES onto another's curtilage, that TRESPASS would be a SEARCH
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
@AudiRS4Life: You do a lot better job inventing wild claims than actually reading the U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Dunn (1987). There, they say that whether an area is curtilage and deserves the protection afforded the intimacies of home life depends on a combination of 4 factors: (1) nearness to home, (2) extent that access is block, (3) extent that view is blocked, and (4) evidence of home-like use.
Here, the areas absolutely flunk 3 of 4 factors. She did not search curtilage.
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DavidForthoffer "You do a lot better job inventing wild claims"...what claim do you think I invented??
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
@DavidForthoffer To determine "open field" or "curtilage" is an ART...even the courts went back and forth...you think she searched "open field"...the MAJORITY think she searched "curtilage"
SCOTUS says (pertaining ‘4’ factors): "WE DO NOT SUGGEST that COMBINING these factors PRODUCES a finely tuned formula that, when mechanically applied, yields a "CORRECT" answer to ALL extent-of-curtilage questions"
The SERVANT shall BEWARE the 4th INCLUDING the property adjoining the structure.
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
@AudiRS4Life: If a thousand posters who have not read United States v. Dunn (1987) post that the health inspector here violated his 4th Amendment rights and almost all of a handful of posters who HAVE read Dunn post that the health inspector did not violate his 4th Amendment rights, then I am impressed by the Dunn posters. You, obviously, are not.
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
@DavidForthoffer "a thousand posters"..."a handful of posters "...
Those are called JURORS
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
@AudiRS4Life said ... Those are called JURORS.
The problem with that approach is that in an actual trial, jurors would be taught the legal criteria for differentiating curtilage from "open fields".
Furthermore, if the jurors get it so wrong that their conclusion is not supported by the evidence, the case will be decided by an appellate court, where the judges understand curtilage issues far better than you or such jurors.
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
@DavidForthoffer says "where the judges understand curtilage issues far better than you or such jurors."
Which is...Very Condescending and Imaginative
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
@AudiRS4Life: I certainly agree that the four Dunn factors do not answer ALL extent-of-curtilage questions.
They do, however, obviously answer whether this video showed THIS health inspector entering the man's curtilage.
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
@DavidForthoffer "They do, however, obviously answer whether this video showed THIS health inspector entering the man's curtilage."
Must AGREE with you...it is OBVIOUS...this health inspector ENTERED the man's curtilage.
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
@AudiRS4Life: Oh, so could you please point out where in the video that access to the areas she visited were blocked, where view to those areas were blocked, and evidence of home-like use (not construction) that is in those areas?
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
@DavidForthoffer I have a simple question...Are you allowed to trespass over 'curtilage' to get to 'open field' to perform your warrantless search?
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
@AudiRS4Life: It is illegal for me to trespass over curtilage to get to an open field to perform my warrantless search. Nevertheless, me behaving illegally does not automatically mean that evidence I find will be excludeded from trial.
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
@DavidForthoffer "automatically"...I agree...not automatically
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
@DavidForthoffer SCOTUS says (pertaining ‘4’ factors): "WE DO NOT SUGGEST that COMBINING these factors PRODUCES a finely tuned formula that, when mechanically applied, yields a "CORRECT" answer to ALL extent-of-curtilage questions"
Residential Property is protected by the 4th INCLUDING the LAND
unless...Are you Saying?
Residential Property
porch = curtilage
mailbox = curtilage
driveway = curtilage
car port = curtilage
side yard = open field
front yard = open field
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
@AudiRS4Life: You again go from a cited, relevant quote that does not support your position to an uncited wild claim that does support your position.
You cannot find any SCOTUS decision that says all Residential Property is protected by the 4th including the land.
I am saying:
Driveway may or may not be curtilage, depending on 4 factors.
Ditto for side yard.
Ditto for front yard.
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
@DavidForthoffer Do you value how the SCOTUS decision in DUNN is PRACTICED by government enforcement agencies...or do the enforcement agencies and their advising lawyers have it all wrong?
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
@DavidForthoffer Earlier you clam this RESIDENTIAL property fails SCOTUS factors 3 and 4...thus IS 'open field'
I respond...quoting:
SCOTUS says (pertaining ‘4’ factors): "WE DO NOT SUGGEST that COMBINING these factors PRODUCES a finely tuned formula that, when mechanically applied, yields a "CORRECT" answer to ALL extent-of-curtilage questions"
Where we can read...merely 1 factor can justify 'curtilage' of the home
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
@AudiRS4Life: When you start raising new, relevant points, I'll start answering those.
Note to other readers: Read the U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Dunn (1987) to better understand these issues.
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DavidForthoffer Do you value how the SCOTUS decision in DUNN is PRACTICED by government enforcement agencies...or do the enforcement agencies and their advising lawyers have it wrong?
AudiRS4Life 4 months ago
Let me play devil's advocate, david - you feel comfortable with this woman perusing around someone's private property looking for violations in this way? Dont you think she should have at least quoted code?
I was rarely denied entry onto private property because I explained the situation thoroughly, and quoted all applicable law. The few times I was denied, I was able to gather all necessary information from public access (roads, driveways, parking lots), and from aerial photography.
boggywoman 4 months ago
@boggywoman: For all you know, she DID quote code ... in the "due notice" that she MAY have given.
She could have undoubtedly been more courteous and polite.
Personally, I think she (erroneously) regarded the visit the day before as "due notice", and could have been charged with both criminal and civil trespass. But I think the guy actually argued on 4th Amendment grounds, which is a red herring in this case.
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
@DavidForthoffer: I have revised my thinking about whether she probably trespassed. I know from other posts that the videographer was actually the landowner and not the tenant (who seems to have been his son). Why would the landowner show up the day before? I now think the likely reason was that he HAD gotten notice some time before (e.g. several weeks), and showed up because of the due notice.
So I think she complied with the "due notice" requirement, and did not trespass.
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
David, she did search an area protected under the 4th Amendment - private property. Even so, it is a shame if our right against unreasonable search and seizure is being degraded in this way, and I was an inspector. Its a fine line between a free state and a police state. But most disturbing to me is her unprofessional demeanor. She did not recite any code giving her the right to enter, did not provide him with any document, and wouldn't look directly at him. Unprofessional, and pathetic.
boggywoman 4 months ago
David, she did search an area protected under the 4th Amendment - private property. Even so, it is a shame if our right against unreasonable search and seizure is being degraded in this way, and I was an inspector. Its a fine line between a free state and a police state. But most disturbing to me is her unprofessional demeanor. She did not recite any code giving her the right to enter, did not provide him with any document, and wouldn't look directly at him. Unprofessional, and pathetic.
boggywoman 4 months ago
As a former environmental inspector, I can say this woman is indeed breaking the law - the incompetence and unprofessionalism from both the socially inept "inspector" and the equally inept deputy are an embarassment to watch. I entirely understood and respected the legal process for entry onto private property. It is always a shock to me that people who should understand trespass laws THOROUGHLY can be so clueless. You have a clearcut trespass case. Pursue, and update us.
boggywoman 4 months ago
@boggywoman: As a former environmental inspector, could you please explain WHY you think this woman is indeed breaking the law, considering that Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 allows health inspectors to enter private property to investigate disease, after due notice?
It is sometimes a shock to me that people claiming to be inspectors themselves who should understand trespass laws THOROUGHLY can be so clueless.
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
@DavidForthoffer U.S. Constitution, 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Constitutional law supercedes local and state law. I would like to see case law upholding this Indiana code.
boggywoman 4 months ago
@DavidForthoffer U.S. Constitution, 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Constitutional law superscedes local and state law. I would like to see case law upholding this Indiana code.
boggywoman 4 months ago
@boggywoman: I'm glad we both support the same version of the 4th Amendment.
Which of "persons, houses, papers, and effects" do you think this health inspector searched?
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
@DavidForthoffer Further, David - If permission is granted, an individual can search property. Thats why cops always ask permission before they "look around" in a car during a stop. If the owner says no, the officer can have the car towed to an impound lot and held until a warrant from the local court is issued. But there must be reasonable cause to issue said warrant. Unreasonable searches are the norm today. It is unfortunate.
boggywoman 4 months ago
i hope you won, and if the cop wasnt getting her off your property couldnt you use force?
cr123555 4 months ago
Okay people, pay close attention. Something you need to know about the 4th amendment here. This is an administrative search. Not a warrantless police search. Notice the sheriff did not, and would not, come onto the property. Not even as a protective escort for the Health Inspector. The reason is because there are very different rules that apply for administrative searches. This has case law precedent on a Federal level to validate 4th amendment exclusion. Doesn't make it right. Just legal...
247lifted 5 months ago
@247lifted: Well said.
Pafoofnik1 5 months ago
@247lifted: Administrative searches of private residential property to NOT get a special exemption from the 4th Amedment. They only get a special exemption FOR HEAVILY REGULATED INDUSTRIES such as prescription drugs, food processing, interstate commerce, etc..
The main point concerning the 4th Amendment for this video is that she did not search areas protected by the 4th Amendment.
DavidForthoffer 5 months ago
@DavidForthoffer Administrative search
Definition
: an inspection or search carried out under a regulatory or STATUTORY scheme esp. in PUBLIC OR COMMERCIAL premises and usu. to enforce compliance with regulations or laws pertaining to HEALTH, safety, or security.
Ref: US Supreme Court - Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967)
247lifted 5 months ago
@247lifted: So what?
DavidForthoffer 5 months ago
i would of kick her ass lol
Mr305momo 5 months ago
I dont want to live in a country where government agents and bureaucrats can wonder onto my property whenever the fuck they please. And those of u who do want this then i suggest moving to Cuba.
Jermetrice 5 months ago
@Jermetrice: Not even in Indiana are government agents and bureaucrats are allowed to wander onto your property whenever they please. State laws against trespassing protect you.
However, such laws have exceptions for certain government agents in certain situations.
For example, Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 allows health inspectors to enter private property to investigate disease, after due notice. If this were you, and you got due notice, you could respond judicially before the visit.
DavidForthoffer 5 months ago
@DavidForthoffer "For example, Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 allows health inspectors to enter private property to investigate disease, after due notice."
this statute only allows entry "to investigate disease." she never said she was there to investigate disease. her stated reason for her visit was "all I want to know is what you're doing." doesn't sound to me like she was there to investigate disease. why didn't she just state her reason for her visit to the owner when she first arrived?
chieftp 5 months ago
@chieftp at the moment she uses one of her sense's it is an investigation..
Carnatics 5 months ago
come on my property
I tell you you're a burglar
the police do not help ....
So I just shoot the burglar himself
for the protection of my property
as easy it is
Carnatics 5 months ago
@chieftp: You do not know whether she gave due notice that DID explain that she wanted to enter his property to investigate disease.
Sure, she could have behaved more politely.
Sure, she may well have been trespassing (by not giving due notice), but we don't know for sure.
DavidForthoffer 5 months ago
@DavidForthoffer we can tell from the context of the video that she did NOT explain why she was there the day before. if she had, she would have said something along the lines of "I told you yesterday why I was here." he asked her several times what she wanted. "all I want to know is what you're doing" was her response. doesn't sound like probable cause to me, due notice or not.
chieftp 5 months ago
@chieftp: I agree that it seems likely she did not explain why she was there the day before.
However, "probable cause" is related to getting a warrant, which is not needed for inspecting areas not protected by the 4th Amendment.
DavidForthoffer 5 months ago
@DavidForthoffer but 16-20-1-23 only allows her to enter to investigate disease, NOT for any other reason. she didn't mention any disease investigation. it appears as if she has no reason to be there, legitimate or otherwise. she's just on a fishing expedition.
chieftp 5 months ago
@chieftp: Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 does not require her to mention disease at the time of the inspection. It only requires her to give "due notice", in which she presumably ought to mention how the inspection relates to disease.
If you'd like, we could agree that she probably did not give due notice (as the visit the day before was certainly not due notice), and was therefore probably trespassing.
DavidForthoffer 5 months ago
@DavidForthoffer the statute may not spell out word for word a requirement for the inspector to explain the situation, but that's just common sense. here's how it should have gone - "hello, I'm Julie Wolfe with the Laporte County Health Department - here's my ID. I'm here to investigate (insert alleged violation here,) and will enter your property at this time under authority of statute (insert appropriate statute here.)" wouldn't that be reasonable, professional, courteous, appropriate, etc?
chieftp 4 months ago
@chieftp: I agree that your proposed approach would have been reasonable, professional, courteous, appropriate, etc., but not necessarily legally required.
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
@chieftp The 4th Amendment supercedes all other laws preventing any goverment official from entering your property for any reason without just cause and a warrant. Period. She and the cops were wrong.
outlawracer2229 4 months ago
@outlawracer2229: You are mistaken in your understanding of the 4th Amendment.
The 4th Amendment does NOT protect "your property". It only protects "persons, houses, papers, and effects". As research will show, our Founding Fathers did indeed mean "persons, houses, papers, and effects" rather than "persons and their property" as you understand the 4th.
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
@DavidForthoffer @chieftp Let me simplify for you two fuckin goverment boneheads. Anyone comes on my property without my permission they will leave in a body bag.
outlawracer2229 4 months ago
@outlawracer2229: Thanks for clarifying which side of the law you are on.
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
@DavidForthoffer I'm on the side of the law that falls under the catagory of the Constitution. The one I took an oath to defend.
outlawracer2229 4 months ago
@outlawracer2229 I don't know what a "goverment" bonehead is. but I'm of the opinion that she needed an administrative warrant to enter his property. but it is NOT a 4th amendment issue. and it is NOT related to sex trafficking as per the statutes the guy who made the video quoted. and no, you're not going to put anyone in a body bag who walks into your yard. get a grip.
chieftp 4 months ago
@chieftp Correction, I will do exactly as I said I would.
outlawracer2229 4 months ago
@outlawracer2229 you didn't say what you would do, you just said something about someone leaving in a body bag. the only people who would murder someone for walking into their yard are toothless methheads who don't even own any property. you're an EMT and you're talking about putting someone in a body bag who walks into your yard uninvited? what kind of hiring standards do they have up there??? and if you're going to "defend" the constitution, you might want to actually read it first.
chieftp 4 months ago
@chieftp I've said all I need to say. I have read it. You should learn what was meant by "We the people." It's not "We the bureaucracy."
outlawracer2229 4 months ago
@outlawracer2229: Did you read the part of the U.S. Constitution where the 4th Amendment protects "persons, houses, papers, and effects", and NOT "persons and all their property"?
Seems like ... NO !!!
DavidForthoffer 4 months ago
@outlawracer2229 you haven't actually said anything at all. you've obviously read things that aren't there, like so many others on here with the "I'd of shot the bitch" mentality. and I'm pretty sure "we the people" wouldn't want this guy's piss and shit in their well water. this is an administrative warrant issue on the state level, not a 4th amendment issue. yes, she should have had a warrant, but based on the state's requirement to have one, not a 4th amendment requirement.
chieftp 4 months ago
@outlawracer2229 the 4th amendment doesn't "prevent any government official from entering your property for any reason without just cause and a warrant." that is NOT what the 4th amendment states.
chieftp 4 months ago
Mr. Forthoffer, are you an attorney?
tualatin67 5 months ago
So let me get this right. This guy had an open septic line right? This could contaminate the ground water supply to several private properties surrounding this property ? Is this guy trying to set up his own frivolous lawsuit?
tualatin67 5 months ago
@tualatin67 no it would not contaminate the ground water supply if all the wells where drilled right then no safety probs if there not then they deserve it
minibikerider1 5 months ago
That cop is a FUCKING IDIOT! If you have nothing t hide you'll let her on your property, are you fucking kidding me?? Really? is this how fucking stupid police are these days? Talk about hiring the lowest common denominator, my god.
"There's more than corn in Indiana", alright, there's a bunch of fucking single-digit IQ cretins acting as police officers!
shadyzz954 5 months ago
The problem is the property is POSTED therefore she needs a warrant. She can look from the road, take pictures from the road but to enter the property and gather evidence without a warrant? Any evidence gathered this way is not allowed in court.
t3chk4 5 months ago
@t3chk4: You are mistaking rights against trespassers with 4th Amendment rights. Those two rights are COMPLETELY separate.
You have 4th Amendment rights sleeping overnight in your tent while trespassing on someone else's property.
Conversely, you can press criminal and civil charges against police trespassing on your cornfield, even though they are not violating your 4th Amendment rights.
Evidence gathered while TRESPASSING is NOT excluded from court. See United States v. Dunn (1987).
DavidForthoffer 5 months ago
so what happened? I've never been stopped by a cop and asked "I pulled you over because all I want to know is what you're doing."
chieftp 5 months ago
cooper the cocksucker to much power protect and serve asshole. jullie the dumb bitch he shoud have dug a big hole coverd it and let them find it the hard way.
armwrestling091 5 months ago
Can't believe the Constitution can be so easily bypassed. Just shows you you do need a fence. Why doesn't the health inspector get the warrant if they can do this??
jimrydill1 6 months ago
@jimrydill1: The Constution was NOT bypassed here. See the U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Dunn (1987).
Your fence suggestion is EXCELLENT, because that would go a long way toward establishing the area inside the fence as "curtilage" and therefore protected by the 4th Amendment.
Since the 4th Amendment does not protect the areas she searched, Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 applies here, which allows health inspectors to enter private property to investigate disease, after due notice.
DavidForthoffer 5 months ago
@DavidForthoffer your a retard.....she walked all the way into every nook and cranny of his property brazenly.....she was required to have a warrant and was allowed by a stupid trooper who thinks he IS THE CONSTITUTION to enter this mans private property...this was a flagrant trespass......arrogant trespassing...she needs A WARRENT BECAUSE THE OWNER SAID DO NOT TRESPASS.
232323C 5 months ago
@232323C: You are yet another person confusing 4th Amentment rights with rights against trespassers.
The two rights are COMPLETLY SEPARATE.
You have 4th Amendment rights inside your tent as you trespass on someone else's property.
Conversely, if police search your cornfield for evidence of a crime, that evidence CAN be used in court against you, even while you press civil and criminal trespassing charges against them, since the 4th only protects "persons, houses, papers, and effects".
DavidForthoffer 5 months ago
@DavidForthoffer ok Mr perverter of words.....your a double talker......if a piece of property is clearly marked with visible NO TRESPASSING signs and a officer snoops onto your property at night to find evidence of a crime then his findings are called "THE FRUIT OF FORBIDDEN TREE" non admissible......DISMISSED...try again you grade school wanna be
232323C 5 months ago
@DavidForthoffer The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is an offspring of the Exclusionary Rule. The exclusionary rule mandates that evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation must be excluded from trial.
232323C 5 months ago
@232323C: You misunderstand the Exclusionary Rule. It ACTUALLY mandates that evidence obtained in violation of a person's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS must SOMETIMES be excluded.
Consider, for example, United States v. Dunn (1987). There, federal agents TRESPASSED about a HALF MILE onto private property, crossing over two fences, and arrived somewhat near Dunn's home. All that was considered CONSTITUTIONAL and their evidence was not suppressed.
DavidForthoffer 5 months ago
Respond to this video... Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, evidence is also excluded from trial if it was gained through evidence uncovered in an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation. Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was established primarily to deter law enforcement from violating rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
232323C 5 months ago
Respond to this video... fruit of the poisonous tree n. in criminal law, the doctrine that evidence discovered due to information found through illegal search or other unconstitutional means (such as a forced confession), may not be introduced by a prosecutor. The theory is that the tree (original illegal evidence) is poisoned and thus taints what grows from it.
232323C 5 months ago
@232323C: You argue that trespassing means that evidence must be excluded. That is certainly a REASONABLE argument. Indeed, Justices Brennan and Marshall agree with you in their dissent in Dunn.
Nevertheless, the law of the land is that trespassing does not trigger the Exclusionary Rule.
DavidForthoffer 5 months ago
Respond to this video... JULIE WITCHFACE
232323C 5 months ago
get a vicious dog. I hope you get paid for this one
jimrydill1 6 months ago
@jimrydill1: He tried. He lost.
DavidForthoffer 6 months ago
if she had reasonable suspicion, probable cause, authority, an anonymous tip or otherwise a reason for being there, she sure did a piss poor job of explaining why.
chieftp 6 months ago
I hate to say it but you almost wish for an article that reads "man dies due to responders being unable to enter property from previous complaints about trespassing." lol, long news headline but you get the idea. Yes, health inspectors are emergency responders as well.
Christinekancan 7 months ago
When health or safety is involved why be a jerk about it? It's one of those things where if this guy was dying or he had a child on someone's private property they'd be in danger because god forbid an official "trespasses" for the possible sake of him, a relative, or the public. If you're not hiding something then don't worry about it. If you act like the guy in this video you have way to much time on you're hand (probably from the handouts from taxpayers, like the ones doing the investigation.)
Christinekancan 7 months ago
This guy is indeed an idiot. If I'm wrong please scan and post the paper work that has made you "rich" from this "trespassing." This idiot stopped someone from doing their job because he read a sentence or two from some regulation/law and now he's a lawyer, and think he doesn't have to go through the same processes as everyone else. If you can't show some evidence that the courts proved you're right then you're an idiot, well you an idiot either way but it's validated without proof.
Christinekancan 7 months ago
@Christinekancan: The man, Raimundas Kirkus, didn't get rich from this trespassing. He sued the La Porte County Health Department but his case was dismissed.
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
@DavidForthoffer
I did like the part where he posted on a blog that he wanted the Michigan Militia to arrest the judge on charges of sedition....
RetSquid 6 months ago
This is why the world cannot be better. No one is considering why that idiot man is so aggressive and defensive. I am a Health Inspector and if it were me in my country i wud've slapped some notices on him for obstructing me. The Health Inspector is way too soft. I'm a female too but he wudnt get to say so much because i dont play. He could be practicing something at home which may be detrimental to the health of his community and environment. His property needs to be investigated.
cuddlesam8 7 months ago
@cuddlesam8 The guy's not an idiot, he's defending his rights. Without a warrant neither the officer or the health inspector can walk on his property without the landowners permission. The guys moving earth around his garden, it's nothing to do with the government or health and safety. It is exactly your kind of attitude that allows for breaches of privacy and freedom like this to happen.
SpatialRiftUK 7 months ago
@SpatialRiftUK: You are mistaking rights against trespassers with 4th Amendment rights.
The 4th Amendment protects "persons, houses, papers, and effects" from unreasonable searches without a warrant. She did not search any of those, and did not violate his 4th Amendment rights.
Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 allows health inspectors to enter private property to investigate disease, after due notice. We cannot tell whether she gave due notice, so we cannot tell whether she trespassed.
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
@SpatialRiftUK Do you know the history behind his property? Sometimes somethings hav been buried for christ's sake (bodies, hazardous chemicals and radioactives substances etc). Trust me, you have no idea some things that we encounter. You are ignorant of our reasons for investigations. So please dont consider it as some wild goose chase or privacy breach. My attitude is what protects you and your family from diseases and hazards. so please dont consider us enemies and cooperate for ur own sake.
cuddlesam8 7 months ago
@cuddlesam8: It turned out that he had a drain pipe emptying out onto bare ground. It seems that the home occupancy permit was revoked, and the tenant (the videographer's son?) was evicted.
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
@DavidForthoffer ""drain pipe emptying out onto bare ground.""
Evidence illegally obtained CANNOT be used in any court case, which means that the eviction was also illegal.
SC v Dunn actually HOLDS in this case due to the proximity of the area where the pictures were taken.
Under Indiana's Castle Doctrine, the man could have used a weapon to keep them off his property, it's what I would have done.
NinjaRider777R 6 months ago
@NinjaRider777R
SCOTUS said, "we believe that curtilage questions should be resolved with particular reference to four factors: the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by."
Only one of the four criteria (proximity) could possibly be used here.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid Proximity, the tresspasser was less than 100 feet from the back of the trailer at the FARTHEST, at one point she was less than 10 feet away.
Again, the Dunn ruling holds up.
NinjaRider777R 6 months ago
@NinjaRider777R
And (1) there was no enclosure. (2) There was nothing in the nature of privacy use. (3) There were no steps to ensure privacy, like a solid fence or wall.
So, UNITED STATES V. DUNN, 480 U. S. 294 (1987) DOES hold up and he has no case.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid Nobody should be forced to have 50 foot high barbed wire fences to be protected by the 4th amendment.
By the law, you need a warrant to come onto someone's property, that's how the warrant law is written, PROPERTY, not curtilage.
By warrant law the search was illegal, and evidence obtained from that search was also illegal. The cop broke his own rules by refusing to call a superior and get a proper warrant.
NinjaRider777R 6 months ago
@NinjaRider777R
If you want a COMPLETE right to privacy on your property, yes you need a big privacy fence.
By law you do NOT need a warrant to go on someone's property, the only things protected are: "your houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,".
There was no illegal seach or seizure either by the Indiana law or the Supreme Court rulings.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@NinjaRider777R said: "By the law, you need a warrant to come onto someone's property, that's how the warrant law is written, PROPERTY, not curtilage."
So the next time the meter reader stops by, I can ask him to see his warrant then?
Pafoofnik1 6 months ago