Privacy is Dead

• Jason Bourne

  

  Glory Days;466333 wrote:And don’t forget, its private property in plain view. If you are stupid enough to be smoking crack infront of the window of your house and a cop sees it, they have every right to arrest you.

  
  Glory Days: You'd stay out of my front yard if you knew what was good for you! And then posting my actions on a public forum? The nerve.
• Jason Bourne

  

  Glory Days;466333 wrote:And don’t forget, its private property in plain view. If you are stupid enough to be smoking crack infront of the window of your house and a cop sees it, they have every right to arrest you.

  
  Glory Days: You'd stop looking through my front window if you knew what was good for you! And then posting my actions on a public forum? The nerve.
• Glory Days

  

  Jason Bourne;466409 wrote:Glory Days: You'd stop looking through my front window if you knew what was good for you! And then posting my actions on a public forum? The nerve.

  
  haha great, are you going to hunt me down next?
• dwccrew

  

  Glory Days;465856 wrote:but if its accesible to the public, how can it be trespassing?

  It is accessable to the public because they can walk up, that doesn't mean it still isn't private property. Unless you have a fence around your entire property with a gate acrossed your driveway, people can access your private property.
  

  Glory Days;466333 wrote:They have every right to approach your door and knock though aslong as they don’t go around to the rear of your house or anything, just like how it works with law enforcement.
  
  And don’t forget, its private property in plain view. If you are stupid enough to be smoking crack infront of the window of your house and a cop sees it, they have every right to arrest you.

  
  You're getting off topic. The point is, it is still private property and a warrant is still needed. The 4th amendment guarantees this, the 9th Circuit Court is trampling on our rights.
  
  If someone is smoking crack in the front window, that is probable cause and police officers would be justified in entering the home. Otherwise though, a warrant is needed.
• Glory Days

  

  dwccrew;466642 wrote:It is accessable to the public because they can walk up, that doesn't mean it still isn't private property. Unless you have a fence around your entire property with a gate acrossed your driveway, people can access your private property.
  
  You're getting off topic. The point is, it is still private property and a warrant is still needed. The 4th amendment guarantees this, the 9th Circuit Court is trampling on our rights.
  
  If someone is smoking crack in the front window, that is probable cause and police officers would be justified in entering the home. Otherwise though, a warrant is needed.

  
  Why would a warrant be needed if anyone could walk onto your driveway? Mailmen, neighbors, repo men, UPS guy, cops, theres nothing private about a driveway.
• dwccrew

  

  Glory Days;466767 wrote:Why would a warrant be needed if anyone could walk onto your driveway? Mailmen, neighbors, repo men, UPS guy, cops, theres nothing private about a driveway.

  What do you not understand about private property being accessible by the public? By accessible, I mean they can just walk on to it, however that is still trespassing. I don't mean it is accessible legally, like the mall is accessible (which is still considered private property open to the public). If someone were to put a fence around their entire property line and a gate acrossed their driveway, would you agree that that would be considered private property?
  
  Also, are you a homeowner? If you are then you would know that your driveway is your private property. You are responsible for the maintenence of it and can alter it however you please (within zoning ordinances), therefore, it is your private property. This means police can't just access your belongings that are on your private property. Your car is your private property, they should have to have a warrant to put a GPS tracking unit on it.
  
  So with your logic, anyone can get into your car that is parked on your driveway? What if your car is parked in the street? I mean anyone can get into it, so it isn't private property, correct?
  
  Have you read the dissenting judge's opinion on this matter? It is very enlightening on the subject and puts it in perspective.
• I Wear Pants

  If you ask someone to leave, even if they are approacking your front door they must do so. Obviously this is different for police who witness illegal activity but still.
  
  No one, especially the police has the right to sneak on to your property and plant tracking devices on your vehical without a warrant.
• I Wear Pants

  Glory Days has to be trolling. No way does he not understand that property in private ownership is private property even if you can walk on it from the road. Just because I don't have a fence around my yard and signs stating GTFO doesn't mean that it's cool to trespass. Sure, the mailman or Fedex guy isn't going to be arrested or anything. But if I told them to leave and they didn't they sure as hell could be.
• Glory Days

  

  dwccrew;467569 wrote:What do you not understand about private property being accessible by the public? By accessible, I mean they can just walk on to it, however that is still trespassing. I don't mean it is accessible legally, like the mall is accessible (which is still considered private property open to the public). If someone were to put a fence around their entire property line and a gate acrossed their driveway, would you agree that that would be considered private property?

  When you put a fence around your property or put up signs etc, you are taking steps to have an expectation of privacy. However until then, you have no expectation of privacy in your driveway. How you could think you have any privacy in plain view I don’t know.
  

  dwccrew;467569 wrote: Also, are you a homeowner? If you are then you would know that your driveway is your private property. You are responsible for the maintenence of it and can alter it however you please (within zoning ordinances), therefore, it is your private property. This means police can't just access your belongings that are on your private property. Your car is your private property, they should have to have a warrant to put a GPS tracking unit on it.
  
  So with your logic, anyone can get into your car that is parked on your driveway? What if your car is parked in the street? I mean anyone can get into it, so it isn't private property, correct?
  
  Have you read the dissenting judge's opinion on this matter? It is very enlightening on the subject and puts it in perspective.

  
  They never went inside the vehicle. Apples and oranges.
  I don’t remember the dissenting opinion, but wasn’t this case upheld in two different courts?
• Glory Days

  

  I Wear Pants;467603 wrote:If you ask someone to leave, even if they are approacking your front door they must do so. Obviously this is different for police who witness illegal activity but still.
  
  No one, especially the police has the right to sneak on to your property and plant tracking devices on your vehical without a warrant.

  
  Lets take out the tracking device then. Say a cop is driving by and sees what he thinks is a stolen car based a report earlier in the day. However he cant tell because he’ll need to get a little closer to see the plate #. Should they have to get a warrant then? Or could the cop just walk up the car to see the plate # and VIN?
• bases_loaded

  

  Glory Days;467839 wrote:Lets take out the tracking device then. Say a cop is driving by and sees what he thinks is a stolen car based a report earlier in the day. However he cant tell because he’ll need to get a little closer to see the plate #. Should they have to get a warrant then? Or could the cop just walk up the car to see the plate # and VIN?

  Wouldn't that fall under probable cause?
  
  
  
  Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
• I Wear Pants

  Yes it would.
  
  Glory, even without a fence or sign people are not allowed to be on your property (even if it's super easy to get on and in plain view) without your permission.
• I Wear Pants

  2911.21 Criminal trespass.
  
  (A) No person, without privilege to do so, shall do any of the following:
  
  (1) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another;
  
  (2) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, the use of which is lawfully restricted to certain persons, purposes, modes, or hours, when the offender knows the offender is in violation of any such restriction or is reckless in that regard;
  
  (3) Recklessly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, as to which notice against unauthorized access or presence is given by actual communication to the offender, or in a manner prescribed by law, or by posting in a manner reasonably calculated to come to the attention of potential intruders, or by fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to restrict access;
  
  (4) Being on the land or premises of another, negligently fail or refuse to leave upon being notified by signage posted in a conspicuous place or otherwise being notified to do so by the owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either.
  
  (B) It is no defense to a charge under this section that the land or premises involved was owned, controlled, or in custody of a public agency.
  
  (C) It is no defense to a charge under this section that the offender was authorized to enter or remain on the land or premises involved, when such authorization was secured by deception.
  
  (D)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of criminal trespass, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.
  
  (2) Notwithstanding section 2929.28 of the Revised Code, if the person, in committing the violation of this section, used a snowmobile, off-highway motorcycle, or all-purpose vehicle, the court shall impose a fine of two times the usual amount imposed for the violation.
  
  (3) If an offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to two or more violations of this section or a substantially equivalent municipal ordinance, and the offender, in committing each violation, used a snowmobile, off-highway motorcycle, or all-purpose vehicle, the court, in addition to or independent of all other penalties imposed for the violation, may impound the certificate of registration of that snowmobile or off-highway motorcycle or the certificate of registration and license plate of that all-purpose vehicle for not less than sixty days. In such a case, section 4519.47 of the Revised Code applies.
  
  (E) Notwithstanding any provision of the Revised Code, if the offender, in committing the violation of this section, used an all-purpose vehicle, the clerk of the court shall pay the fine imposed pursuant to this section to the state recreational vehicle fund created by section 4519.11 of the Revised Code.
  
  (F) As used in this section:
  
  (1) “All-purpose vehicle,” “off-highway motorcycle,” and
  
  “snowmobile” have the same meanings as in section 4519.01 of the Revised Code.
  
  (2) “Land or premises” includes any land, building, structure, or place belonging to, controlled by, or in custody of another, and any separate enclosure or room, or portion thereof.

  I bolded the parts Glory Days needs to read.
  
  Notice how there isn't a section that says "except if the property is in plain view and easily accessible?"
• Glory Days

  

  I Wear Pants;468171 wrote:I bolded the parts Glory Days needs to read.
  
  Notice how there isn't a section that says "except if the property is in plain view and easily accessible?"

  
  that doesnt even apply to this. unless you are trying to get your neighbor arrested or something, we are dealing with law enforcement. Plus, look at the open field doctrine, although not the case here, going into an open field is legal, even if trespassing(for law enforcement).
  
  Plain View
  the officer must already have lawful presence in an area protected by the 4th Amendment.
  We already determined a driveway/sidewalk etc is private, but the public has access to it until you say otherwise. Courts have determined you do not have an expectation of privacy unless you take steps to have privacy.
  
  The officer must observe an item in plain view.
  The officer observed the vehicle which was being used to commit a crime.
  
  The officer must immediately recognize the item as evidence or contraband without making a further intrusion.
  As part of the investigation, the officers knew this specific vehicle belonged to the drug dealer.
  
  How curtilage is defined by law:
  the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home,
  in this case, the first step in determining the limit of curtilage fits, the car was near the home.
  
  whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home
  the area is not included in an enclosure, it does not meet the 2nd step.
  
  the nature of the uses to which the area is put
  the nature of the use, well like we said, driveways are private, but do have some public access. Doesn’t meet step 3.
  
  and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by.
  no steps were taken by the resident to protect this area from observation, does not meet step 4.
  
  Now the court does not say it must meet 3 out of 4 or 4 out of 4 of those criteria, but when it only meets 1 criteria and there are no other factors, its probably not going to hold up(which it hasn’t in this case). Look at United States v. Dunn, the guy had his drugs in a barn, on his property surrounded by a fence. Agents did the same thing, they went onto the property, looked in the barn, then came back the next day with a warrant. The case was up held by the supreme court because although the barn was enclosed in a fence and the drugs were inside, the barn was too far away from the house and he was not protected by the 4th amendment.
• I Wear Pants

  You were arguing that our driveways are not private property. They clearly are.
• Glory Days

  

  I Wear Pants;468584 wrote:You were arguing that our driveways are not private property. They clearly are.

  
  no shit sherlock, but the law views things a little differently, which is the only point of this case/debate.
• I Wear Pants

  The point is that an officer should have to have a warrant to sneak onto your property and plant tracking devices on more of your property.
• Glory Days

  

  I Wear Pants;468671 wrote:The point is that an officer should have to have a warrant to sneak onto your property and plant tracking devices on more of your property.

  
  then park your car in a garage.
• dwccrew

  

  Glory Days;468960 wrote:then park your car in a garage.

  
  Nah, they can just get a warrant. What if someone doesn't have a garage? Should they be treated differently than someone that does have a garage and can park their car in said garage? That would open a whole new can of legal worms. Just stick to getting a warrant like the 4th amendment clearly states. I have a feeling this will get overturned by the SCOTUS.
• I Wear Pants

  Glory Days;468960 wrote:then park your car in a garage.

  I shouldn't have to.
• Glory Days

  

  dwccrew;468986 wrote:Nah, they can just get a warrant. What if someone doesn't have a garage? Should they be treated differently than someone that does have a garage and can park their car in said garage? That would open a whole new can of legal worms. Just stick to getting a warrant like the 4th amendment clearly states. I have a feeling this will get overturned by the SCOTUS.

  
  doubt it. look at pervious cases such as United States v Dunn. The guy had the drugs, in a barn, on his property, that was fenced in. however the barn was about 50 yards away from his house. The search was legal. This case is similar I think, although the car was close to the house, it wasn’t fenced in and was on the driveway, not around back or in a garage.
  

  I Wear Pants;468991 wrote:I shouldn't have to.

  then don’t expect to have any privacy when you park your car infront of your house. Like I have said a million times now, you have to take steps to create an expectation of privacy. You may not like it, but its been upheld time and time again in courts. and remember, the vehicle was not searched or entered, they could see it from a public area(the street) and simply walked up the driveway to the car, placed the GPS and walked back.
• dwccrew

  

  GD, could you post a link to the case you have cited? Thanks
• I Wear Pants

  Glory Days;469007 wrote:doubt it. look at pervious cases such as United States v Dunn. The guy had the drugs, in a barn, on his property, that was fenced in. however the barn was about 50 yards away from his house. The search was legal. This case is similar I think, although the car was close to the house, it wasn’t fenced in and was on the driveway, not around back or in a garage.
  
  
  then don’t expect to have any privacy when you park your car infront of your house. Like I have said a million times now, you have to take steps to create an expectation of privacy. You may not like it, but its been upheld time and time again in courts. and remember, the vehicle was not searched or entered, they could see it from a public area(the street) and simply walked up the driveway to the car, placed the GPS and walked back.

  
  To place said GPS device on my car without my authorization they had to unknowingly enter my property. This is trespassing.
  
  So because I park my car in my driveway someone is allowed to just walk up and sit on it? It wasn't searched or entered. That still isn't allowed without the owners consent.
  
  This law will be overturned if our system works.
• Glory Days

  

  dwccrew;469054 wrote:GD, could you post a link to the case you have cited? Thanks

  UNITED STATES v. DUNN, 480 U.S. 294 (1987)
  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/480/294.html
  

  dwccrew;468986 wrote:What if someone doesn't have a garage? Should they be treated differently than someone that does have a garage and can park their car in said garage? That would open a whole new can of legal worms.

  I believe that was discussed somewhere. How the rich have better opportunities to create an expectation of privacy. However this is nothing new. The rich have the ability to get a better lawyer etc. unlike someone who can't afford one and is stuck with whoever is assigned by the court.
  

  I Wear Pants;469073 wrote:To place said GPS device on my car without my authorization they had to unknowingly enter my property. This is trespassing.
  
  So because I park my car in my driveway someone is allowed to just walk up and sit on it? It wasn't searched or entered. That still isn't allowed without the owners consent.
  
  This law will be overturned if our system works.

  I already pointed out the “Open Field” doctrine I believe earlier. Although it doesn’t exactly apply to this case, it doesn’t matter if it is trespassing. your private property that is an “open field” does not have an expecation of privacy. Which is probably somewhere along the lines of the public access which driveways and sidewalks have.
• I Wear Pants

  See, I disagree with the findings of that case. So I guess we can stop arguing here as we differ in opinion and not on our understanding of the facts.
  
  I believe that unless there is probable cause or other circumstances (someone called them to the area, you called them, someone reported wrongdoing, etc) no one, police included should be permitted on your land without your permission (obviously people/mailmen/etc can knock on your door but if you ask them to leave they must) unless they have a warrant.