Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

Here is a very informative article, not focused so much on the warrantless search, but rather the details of the case.

Source

It looks like the grow operation was spotted by fisherman and loggers from adjacent properties, who then ratted out the growers. Along with aerial surveillance , the authorities already had legal evidence that there was a large grow operation, they just didn’t have 'proof' that it was the property owners that were managing the operation.

On June 18 another fisherman contacted authorities of a large growth just off Middle Inlet Creek, north of County Road X and provided a map of the location. Also observed was a pump next to the stream, power cord, makeshift bridge and a shed in which someone was sleeping.

They likely had enough evidence without the hidden cameras on the property. I think they did it, knowing it would likely be thrown out as illegal, but it wasn’t.

Property photo from Google Maps:

N12309 South Hill Road, Athelstane Wis



Based on what I understand from the article, this confession was based on the... what should be, illegal warrantless cameras.

Brian Magana was interviewed and admitted purchasing the Middle Inlet property with his uncle, Manual Mendza and that the properties were purchased for use in growing marijuana for sale. On July 4 he along with his mother and uncle, Marco Magna and two others went to the Athelstane site to take seeds from the marijuana plants.

Makes the case a lot easier to prove.

Everyone here should place hidden surveillance cameras on police and city officials and state officials and federal officials, and I guarantee you that those cameras will catch those people breaking the law, and violating their oath of office.

Then we put the videos on YouTube.

That would make them think twice.

I am in awe of how fast the US is morphing into a police state....

I'm reminded of the George Bush quote about the constitution...
"...It's just a goddamn piece of paper!...It's just a goddamn piece of paper!"

We have the Patriot Act and NDAA, and indefinite detention--with no right to due process,
and no oversight.

We have a sitting POTUS who is supposed to be a constitutional scholar but it
appears that man has never actually read the document.

We have a new zeitgeist where the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are seen as
subversive documents by law enforcement. And If you quote them or (OMG) own a copy
you will be subject to suspicion, possibly placed on a list, or ultimately incarcerated or
killed.

In fifteen years we have gone from a country where innocence was assumed first, and guilt
must be proven, to a country where ALL are presumed guilty, until innocence can be established

I'm tired of it.....I DO NOT pledge allegiance to the flag....I DO NOT pledge allegiance to
the government for which it stands.....

I, instead, pledge allegiance to the constitution....I pledge allegiance to the principles that it defines.

And by doing so, I am not a guilty party, I am not a BAD guy. I am an American citizen who
is fed up with his government over-stepping its bounds and attempting to rewrite the
Constitution as it sees fit. That document created and sustained one of the greatest
republics in all of human history....and I am sick of watching it being subverted and trampled.

the 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.

(from wiki)

I see nothing in there about being secure in your fields and paddocks??

I bet lots of those videos end up on redtube
So much for privacy

Originally posted by boncho
Uh, this one has now been upheld by the supreme court. While thermal imaging and cell phone tracking was stricken down.

No it has not been upheld by the US Supreme Court. This decision is coming from a Federal Circuit Judge, not the Supreme Court.

In January, the Supreme Court rejected warrantless GPS tracking after previously rejecting warrantless thermal imaging, but it has not yet ruled on warrantless cell phone tracking or warrantless use of surveillance cameras placed on private property without permission.

The Supreme Court has issued rulings in relation to what consitutes private property and what constitutes semi private property. It involves determining what curtilage is, which the court did, in addition to an exception called open fields doctrine..

In Hester v. United States,285 the Court held that the Fourth Amendment did not protect "open fields" and that, therefore, police searches in such areas as pastures, wooded areas, open water, and vacant lots need not comply with the requirements of warrants and probable cause.

I wonder how jackass Judge William Griesbach would like it if concerned citizens would post video of the front of his house on social media sites? You know.... just to make sure things are on the up and up.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Thanks for clarifying. The Callahan recommendation confused me.

Originally posted by Rabbi4Peace
reply to post by boncho

 

One more step closer to a facist police state.

Let's embrace our enslavement together?

Yep. My mistake. It was the comments by Callahan in the article that confused me. Perhaps the mods can edit the op for me. My apologies.

the whole point of warrants is to have evidence so innocent people aren't targeted and law enforcement resources are focused on the correct person.

now, apparently, cops can sneak around at night in dark clothes on your property without anybody knowing what they are doing or where they are.

and if some redneck shoots them, he'll be charged with capital murder and see first hand what its all about.

If someone pulled that on my property, don't blame me if they disappear. Lots of woods here to "get lost" in. Lots of dangerous animals about too

Knowing the current law means nothing,once precedent is set,they can repeat the offense,because it is not unprecedented.

Its all word games.

If you heard it on MSM,it's already common practice.

Common law is the law of the land,that's why commoners cannot seem to realise the fact that the commonstitution has been abrugated (sp),twisted to mean....whatever....

We are subjects,but PLEASE,tell me who is king.

I fear it is technology itself,like all those movies we all watch............

reply to post by randomname


Being the bulk of US States dont allow a person to kill an individual on their property your observations a bit off. Castle doctrines generally only apply to inside the home and in some states your vehicle as well. Trespassing is not an offense that allows the use of deadly force. The only time it would allow for it is if the property owner is defending him/her self from imminent death / great bodily harm or a third party.

The ruling by the Supreme court only applies to open fields / pastures / wooded areas etc etc etc.

Are these people smoking crack, just walking on someone's property without permission is against the law, wtf are they thinking. I hope someone in a state that can shoot on site kills one of these morons setting it up or a hunter on his property ^^

on a side note, any cops, dea, nsa,cia,fbi, or any of the other 50000 organizations we came up with to destroy and up-root out protected freedoms. If they want to come put free cameras on my property be my guest, but don't be surprised when they um go missing and I somehow are 50 bucks to thousands richer ^^. If its on my property, must be my property right? Which means I can do what ever I want with it. Do any of the judges that ruled on this live in RI/ma/CT area, ill drive there and set up all my cameras across the street, and film for a weekend, when asked ill just say just up holding your dumb ass decision idiot, how do you like it, just trying to see if you are up to something illegal. I've got quite a collection of cameras small and large from going to art school heh ^^

Just one more step in the march to taking away all of our rights....
Do as I say, not as I do

Oh look! Another corrupt, sell out judge! What a surprise.

My country tis of thee, sweet land of... what was that word again?

Originally posted by rival
I am in awe of how fast the US is morphing into a police state....

I'm reminded of the George Bush quote about the constitution...
"...It's just a goddamn piece of paper!...It's just a goddamn piece of paper!"

edit on 31-10-2012 by rival because: (no reason given)

Bush never said that.
www.factcheck.org...
The "paper" that reported it has since retracted it saying it is not true.

As to the rest. This ONLY applies to open fields, not where a house is. The ruling is based on the Supreme Court ruling. You have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your back yard. You do not on a peice of land in the middle of nowhere.

I live in the middle of "nowhere", on 40 acres of woods surrounded by more woods used primarily for hunting (all private property as well). Does this mean they can put cameras around my house? I consider my yard to be an acre or two around my house, but I did very little clearing.

Its bad enough they can drive by, fly over or use satellites to monitor with. Very iffy in my opinion. Not to mention the right to face your accuser in court. I'm sure they could use some anonymous tip to justify the trespassing and surveillance.

I'm sure signs and fences mean nothing to them considering the idea of private property ownership is a just a joke on the property owner.

reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck


If one of those trespassers step into say a bear trap, could I be held responsible for that?

reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck

Looking at some of the cases involved it looks like any property not inside your house can be spied on depending on how you protect it. Also any sheds or detached garages could be fair game.

So for instance you would have to have a fence making your yard. And it would need to be a privacy fence, not a simple wire fence. It would also have to either circle your house or be joined to it in some fashion.

US v. Dunn

Applying the first factor to the instant case, the barn's substantial distance from the fence surrounding the house (50 yards) and from the house itself (60 yards) supports no inference that it should be treated as an adjunct of the house. Second, the barn did not lie within the fence surrounding the house, which plainly demarks the area that is part and parcel of the house, but stands out as a distinct and separate portion of the ranch.

Fourth, respondent did little to protect the barn area from observation by those standing outside, the ranch's fences being of the type used to corral livestock, not to ensure privacy. Pp. 480 U. S. 300-303.