|
CrackrocKid (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The cameraman talked too much. "It doesn't matter if I have something to hide... I'm moving dirt around..etc" The cameramn's tone became confrontational the more he spoke.Every word beyond "No warrant No Search" was a waste and may have provided probable cause for the property to be searched. CRK
DavidForthoffer (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
AmericanPoliceState: Read older posts to understand why she and the deputy behaved legally.
AmericanPoliceState (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Yes she can take pictures from the side of the property however she can not enter the property until she takes the pictures to a judge for a warrant to see it is enough for a warrant. By the distance of where she was its difficult to assertain health code violations. She would need to be upclose to examine the area. If she can take pictures from the border of the property of plain sight things, take them to a judge and get a warrant then that is legal. She didnt do that.
YouImposter (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I would have busted her RIGHT in her MOUTH! Come to My camp BITCH! Fuck that corrupt cop!
stillrob420 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
the man is right, even if it causes drama, its his right
DavidForthoffer (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
You're welcome. You may want to read United States v. Dunn, 480 U. S. 294 (1987).
Parrotisla (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Thanks, thats because i actually think before I write unlike most people on youtube. I tend to win arguments because I research before I write. I also every so often research our rights in this country unlike most people that way I don't get taken advantage of by the police and/or government. You watch shows like cops and wonder why people agree to do things for the police like search them, well that's because their too stupid to realize you can say NO. Thanks for that additional info.
DavidForthoffer (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I congratulate you as being the first person whose first post is actually relevant.I disagree about the "fence" criterion. That is certainly an argument for curtilage, but not the only one. Nearness of the area to the house, whether sight of the area is blocked, and use of the area all contribute. The area she was on has only one of four factors in his favor, and is clearly not curtilage.
Parrotisla (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
This is a tough case. As "open land" is not protected by the 4th amendment but curtilage is protected. Could the land that she is walking on be considered curtilage or open land? If he had a fence around the area then this would be definite curtilage, but it falls more in the gray area. Depending on how close the land she is looking at is rom the house or other buildings on the property this could be considered curtilage and therefore protected by the 4th amendment.
joe80dman (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Both of these "public servants" are stepping beyond their bounds here. The deputy is implying the property owner has to PROVE HIMSELF INNOCENT when he says "if you have nothing to hide...". The 2nd Amendment guarantees all the rest. In many locations west of the Mississippi, and east of Calif, both of these public servants would have been pumped full of hot lead. |