Oct 11
Incident in Indiana where a health inspector tresp es on private property while law enforcement looks on.
Duration : 0:8:59
Incident in Indiana where a health inspector tresp es on private property while law enforcement looks on.
Duration : 0:8:59
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
Where’s the dogs …
Where’s the dogs when you need’em! Trained that is.
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
I certainly …
I certainly sympathize with some dissenting opinions in certain cases, but when the question is the legality of an act, it is the majority opinion that counts.
Certainly the nature of the enclosure is very important, as indicated by the four factors in Dunn.
I do not see how applying the Fourth Amendment to factories, etc., erodes its protection of “persons, houses, papers, and effects”, though it may erode a later expansion of it.
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
Well I have read it …
Well I have read it. And if you read the dissenting opinion, then that’s pretty much where I’m coming from. And to keep saying it is all about the home is ridiculous and a tactic used by those wishing to erode the 4th. The 4th clearly now and has historically applied to offices, factories, labs, cars, boats, lockers etc. You say that they didn’t decide in that case regarding fences vs wall, but that thinking is clearly being weighed in the decision. The nature of the enclosure is very important.
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
The guy with the …
The guy with the camera does not sound like a nut case to me.
He sounds like a guy who firmly believes the Fourth Amendment protects all private property, not just “houses, persons, papers, and effects”.
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
You don’t know …
You don’t know which cases to cite? Well, how about citing any ONE case more recent than United States v. Dunn, in which the U.S. Supreme Court said the basic issue was whether the area was so intimately tied to the home as to deserve Fourth Amendment protection. They did NOT decide what you said about fences or walls.
A human guard may enforce privacy better than walls, but the issue is not just privacy. It is home-related. Guards may enforce privacy away from homes.
Read U.S. v. Dunn.
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
I don’t know which …
I don’t know which cases to cite, but basically open fields is tested by the expectation for privacy. The courts have determined that a field surrounded by a fence does not demonstrate enough of an expectation, but a field completely surrounded by walls does. It probably hasn’t been tested, but IMHO having a human guard(s) demonstrates more of an expectation for privacy than walls do.
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
plz don’t flag this …
plz don’t flag this.. I found this on a site cuz i wanted to know what happend with this case, it is the girls email jwolfe (at) laportecounty (dot) org I just emailed her and it was delivered cuz i did not get a non deliverable msg.
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
the Court has …
the Court has approved routine warrantless seizures, for example “where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed.”
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
Criminal Tressp , …
Criminal Tressp , the sheriff should have arrested her if she refused to leave thats the only thing that is relavent. Indiana has some terrible law enforcement agents-do they even teach the law to Indiana officers. All she needs to know is he asked her to get off his property, nothing to hide or not is irrelevant, she is commiting a crime tressp ing.
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
Keys1337 said, “the …
Keys1337 said, “the court determined that no EFFORT to maintain privacy had been shown”.
Which court said that in which case? Certainly not the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Dunn.
I think a more logical interpretation is “open field” is NOT “houses, persons, papers, or effects”.
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
I guess I have to …
I guess I have to add that US v. Dunn is also alarming in that they treat a barn differently than another commercial building and then breaching multiple fences is OK under open fields.
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
Your interpretation …
Your interpretation of open fields is alarming, and doubly so that you criticize the understanding of others. The reason open fields don’t enjoy the same protection as other private property is because the court determined that no EFFORT to maintain privacy had been shown, and they see development as a form of effort. Open field = no effort. In the case of this video, I don’t think anyone disputes the great effort shown by the property owner.
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
what a stupid whore
what a stupid whore
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
so what was the out …
so what was the out come?
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
Yeah, the famous: ” …
Yeah, the famous: “We’re Here TO Help!” lol
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
How did it turn out …
How did it turn out? And what law were you supposedly violating? Must know. I’m pro-law enforcement - but this is ridiculous. What were they looking for? extinct earthworms?
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
I want to know what …
I want to know what happened. A follow up would be nice.
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
I would destroy …
I would destroy that pig jewish whore.
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
Under German Law …
Under German Law 1941 she has rights to enter property
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
David Forthoffer,
…
David Forthoffer,
As I have already refuted, and you have already conceded: the four factors for consideration in Dunn are not conjunctive requirements. Why do you persist with purveying what you know to be false? You have essentially acknowledged that one factor would be sufficient (a solid fence) and that the property owner complies with one (close proximity to the residence).
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
I am referring to …
I am referring to the previous posts mentioning UNITED STATES V. DUNN, 480 U. S. 294 (1987) which gives the four factors to be considered to distinguish curtilage from open fields, and Indiana Code 16-20-1-23 which gives Indiana health officers the right to enter private property after due notice.
You, zhuliu, among others do not understand the law, as other people who have read those laws realize.
You will no doubt respond with a further demonstration of your lack of understanding.
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
“Listen to the way …
“Listen to the way he is talking. It says it all.”
What “way”? “All” of what? Please explain yourself.
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
“What did he say …
“What did he say that was nutty?”
Listen to the way he is talking. It says it all.
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
but what about the …
but what about the main issue? did the agent have the right to enter his property?
November 30th, 1999 at 12:00 am
what did he say …
what did he say that was “nutty”?