FITASC said:...here in FL cops take them along for remote property busts so they may not need a warrant
zxcvbob said:....If hypothetically the sheriff did take a game warden along to search for drugs or something, (hear me out) he could legally enter the property without a warrant to search for poached game, etc, and snoop around while he's there. If he did find illegal drugs or something totally unrelated to to fish and game regulations, wouldn't that evidence be inadmissible in court?....
Quote:
Originally Posted by FITASC
...here in FL cops take them along for remote property busts so they may not need a warrant
Evidence?
FITASC said:Police officers and husband of a coworker who is a game warden
It would also be state dependent, would it not?Frank Ettin said:Answering that would require a lot of research, which I'm not inclined to do. It would also be detail dependent.
"Open fields" for law enforcement is not equal to freedom for the general public to trespass. I don't know of any place where it is not illegal to walk across someone else's property without permission. It's certainly illegal where I live. There's probably considerable debate as to whether or not it's immoral or ethically wrong to go traipsing around on other people's property. My grandparents taught me that it was wrong, that's my starting point.5Whiskey said:After all, a court is not likely to make a ruling on state constitutional grounds of search and seizure unless you’ve already been charged with a violation by the rabbit sheriff (I mean game warden). Open fields doctrine also is rooted in some long standing tradition. It’s generally not unlawful, immoral, or ethically wrong to walk through a large block of woods owned by another, even without permission. Many portions of the Appalachian trail and the N.C. mountains to sea trail cross private lands, and both are well trod by people without specific permission to cross said lands. Maybe Tennessee holds different views, but I see that being more of an anomaly than a standard.
Likely would not get tossed. Officer saw the items in plain view from a place where he had a right to be (pursuant to the open fields doctrine). If the illicit nature of the item was obvious, then it would come in under the plain view doctrine.Answering that would require a lot of research, which I'm not inclined to do. It would also be detail dependent.
4thAmendmentLawyer said:...Officer saw the items in plain view from a place where he had a right to be (pursuant to the open fields doctrine). If the illicit nature of the item was obvious, then it would come in under the plain view doctrine.
"Not illegal" as in legal?Aguila Blanca .....I don't know of any place where it is not illegal to walk across someone else's property without permission.
Doubtful, unless posted per state law.It's certainly illegal where I live.
There's nothing immoral or unethical about it. If the landowner does not want anyone on his property he posts it according to state law.There's probably considerable debate as to whether or not it's immoral or ethically wrong to go traipsing around on other people's property. My grandparents taught me that it was wrong, that's my starting point.
I suppose I shouldn't generalize. My bad.dogtown tom said:"Not illegal" as in legal?Aguila Blanca .....I don't know of any place where it is not illegal to walk across someone else's property without permission.
Unless the property is posted "No Trespassing", its perfectly legal to walk on private property without any need to ask the landowner. It happens literally millions of times per minute in every state in the country.
Doubtful, unless posted per state law.It's certainly illegal where I live.
I think that's about right.Sure, if the contraband/evidence is in plain sight. But as I read the hypothetical the question goes beyond the seizure of contraband/evidence in plain sight.
The premise implicit in a couple of posts is that regular police take a game warden along to get them onto property without a warrant. Once there, the police or game warden then conduct a thorough search for evidence or contraband without a warrant.
My off-the-cuff view is that seizing something in plain sight would be kosher, but anything not in plain sight (and not related to enforcement of fish and game laws) would not be legitimized by the presence of a game warden. But I don't like to opine on such questions without doing the research.
Legal question for Frank and the other lawyers: If hypothetically the sheriff did take a game warden along to search for drugs or something, (hear me out) he could legally enter the property without a warrant to search for poached game, etc, and snoop around while he's there. If he did find illegal drugs or something totally unrelated to to fish and game regulations, wouldn't that evidence be inadmissible in court? I don't think it could even be used as probable cause for the sheriff to get a warrant; "fruit of the poisoned tree"
Although the Fourth Amendment does not apply to a search or seizure, even an arbitrary one, effected by a private party on his own initiative, the Amendment protects against such intrusions if the private party acted as an instrument or agent of the Government. See United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 -114 (1984); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 487 (1971). See also Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 475 (1921).
cjwils said:Aguila Blanca said, "In MY state it's unlawful (i.e. "illegal") to enter on or cross someone else's property without their permission."
That seems to mean that every time anyone walks up to anyone else's front door to knock, they have engaged in an illegal act, regardless of their reason for knocking. I find that hard to believe.
Trespass is defined by the act of knowingly entering another person’s property without permission.
I know my legal opinions are not welcome on this forum, but here's one anyway. The approach I would take is the surveillance equipment was seized by the landowner because it was trespassing -- the state official who placed it there's authority or easement to be on the property is irrelevant. The legal precedent is civil forfeiture laws, where your property is arrested, and property has no rights so sucks to be you; the state keeps it with no due process. Goose, gander, etc.I remember reading about a couple of cases that I suspect inspired the OP's legal quest. If memory serves, state game wardens ( by whatever title ) had placed trail cams on private property that were facing the property owners domicile and driveway, not necessarily just game land. The property owners removed the equipment, and then faced criminal charges for the removal of the equipment.
I would guess that this matter is still working its way through the system, and the OP is searching for folks in similar circumstances, as the allegations made by the property owners against the state show an unsettling tendency for the state to set up surreptitious surveillance under the guise of conservation, or atleast the ability to do so.
As a property owner myself, I am used to occasional trespass and pretty understanding about giving state officials access for several reasons, but the idea that equipment would be secretly installed to monitor my personal activities is something that I would want to investigate and litigate.