|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Iso
by AustinC. 05/21/24 05:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
118 registered members (BPI, timberwolfe, TamaDrumhead, JohnG, JohnnyLoco, Young20, riflenut, billrv, BigEd, CarbonClimber1, coosabuckhunter, Bandit635, 7PTSPREAD, BCLC, AU coonhunter, Pwyse, RCHRR, globe, Buckwheat, velvet tines, Safetyman, stl32, Ben Cochran, thayerp81, Shaneomac2, mopar, cch, joe sixpack, jhardy, Shotts, murf205, Dean, Peach, Trecker1, phinfan, Gobble4me757, sloughfoot, Lvlhdd, Shadyj, woodduck, reload, Solothurn, skoor, Hornhntr, jmj120, Canterberry, Whiskey9, WPZJR, odocoileus, eskimo270, JKlep, hunter84, Floorman1, jbatey1, TexasHuntress, GATA87, Squadron77, Fishduck, catdoctor, MidnightRider, Tmacfire, AustinC, twaldrop4, Gunner211, Nmonk23, CNC, Justice, Remington270, DryFire, Chaser357, GomerPyle, Tall Dog, Lockjaw, NorthFork, BC, Turkeyneck78, burbank, PikeRoadHunter, ronfromramer, TurkeyJoe, laidback, Frogeye, 2walnuts, Rainbowstew, mikewhandley, YB21, IDOT, gundoc, crenshawco, Dubie, CatfishJunkie, ducky25, Luxfisher, healy4au, cdaddy14, robinhedd, Keysbowman, Swamp Monkey, BentBarrel, Gary Harris, Daveleeal, sawdust, 1hunter, Skillet, BurningBright, klay, Bull64, CB5121, Ron A., MarksOutdoors, 8 invisible),
823
guests, and 0
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Game Wardens..
[Re: jono23]
#1826612
08/26/16 07:06 PM
08/26/16 07:06 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 104 GREENSBORO, ALABAMA
tonyfan14
3 point
|
3 point
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 104
GREENSBORO, ALABAMA
|
''Open Fields.'' In Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (1924), the Supreme 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. Invoking Hester's reliance on the literal wording of the Fourth Amendment (open fields are not ''effects'', the Court ruled that the open fields exception applies to fields that are fenced and posted., in Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984). ''[A]n individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of doors in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home.'' Id. at 178. An individual cannot demand privacy for activities conducted within outbuildings and visible by trespassers peering into the buildings from just outside. United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (space immediately outside a barn, accessible only after crossing a series of ''ranch-style'' fences and situated one-half mile from the public road, constitutes unprotected ''open field''). Activities within the curtilage are nonetheless still entitled to some Fourth Amendment protection. The Court has described four considerations for determining whether an area falls within the curtilage: the proximity to the home, the presence of an enclosure also surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to shield the area from view of passersby.
United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S.294 (1987) (barn 50 yards outside fence surrounding home, used for processing chemicals, and separated from public access only by series of livestock fences, by chained and locked driveway, and by one-half mile's distance, is not within curtilage). Naked-eye inspection from helicopters flying overhead contravenes no reasonable expectation of privacy. Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989) (view through partially open roof of greenhouse). And aerial photography of commercial facilities secured from ground-level public view is permissible, the Court finding such spaces more analogous to open fields than to the curtilage of a dwelling. Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986).
|
|
|
|