Originally Posted by jawbone
Originally Posted by Driveby
What are you saying yep to? There's like 4 questions there.
I see 4 question marks but not 4 questions, but I'll answer it 4 times. Terry v Ohio. Terry v Ohio. Terry v Ohio. Terry v Ohio. That is the standard that I think should apply since none of us like Open Fields Doctrine.

Keep in mind also, this is in PA and does not apply to AL. The Supreme Court in AL or if they choose to go Federal, someone in our Federal Courts out of Atlanta will have to either make the same ruling or adopt this ruling to make it applicable to AL so someone will have to take it to them on a ticket they received. So for now at least, nothing changes in AL.
Dance move like Fred Astaire.
Here are the 4 questions:

1. Let's change one word in this question and see how it works...................
How can a GW get Probable Cause to ever check a House unless they are allowed in it. (there's not a question mark there because I simply copied and pasted your remark then replaced dove field with house. You didn't use a question mark so that one is on you. grin

2. Now, can an officer enter a house to get probable cause and in turn obtain a warrant to search it? If the answer is no, then the same should apply to a privately owned field.

3.So what you are saying is, with Articulable Reasonable Belief, the officer would not need a warrant, only the belief that a crime "may" be getting committed??? (multiple question marks)

4.Follow up to the previous question. If so, is the act of hunting itself enough to say a crime "may" be committed?

Three of these questions are yes or no questions so Terry v Ohio is not the correct answer.

The true mark of a man is not how he conducts himself during times of prosperity, but how he conducts himself during times of adversity.