Glory Days;466333 wrote:And don’t forget, its private property in plain view. If you are stupid enough to be smoking crack infront of the window of your house and a cop sees it, they have every right to arrest you.
Glory Days;466333 wrote:And don’t forget, its private property in plain view. If you are stupid enough to be smoking crack infront of the window of your house and a cop sees it, they have every right to arrest you.
Jason Bourne;466409 wrote:Glory Days: You'd stop looking through my front window if you knew what was good for you! And then posting my actions on a public forum? The nerve.
It is accessable to the public because they can walk up, that doesn't mean it still isn't private property. Unless you have a fence around your entire property with a gate acrossed your driveway, people can access your private property.Glory Days;465856 wrote:but if its accesible to the public, how can it be trespassing?
Glory Days;466333 wrote:They have every right to approach your door and knock though aslong as they don’t go around to the rear of your house or anything, just like how it works with law enforcement.
And don’t forget, its private property in plain view. If you are stupid enough to be smoking crack infront of the window of your house and a cop sees it, they have every right to arrest you.
dwccrew;466642 wrote:It is accessable to the public because they can walk up, that doesn't mean it still isn't private property. Unless you have a fence around your entire property with a gate acrossed your driveway, people can access your private property.
You're getting off topic. The point is, it is still private property and a warrant is still needed. The 4th amendment guarantees this, the 9th Circuit Court is trampling on our rights.
If someone is smoking crack in the front window, that is probable cause and police officers would be justified in entering the home. Otherwise though, a warrant is needed.
What do you not understand about private property being accessible by the public? By accessible, I mean they can just walk on to it, however that is still trespassing. I don't mean it is accessible legally, like the mall is accessible (which is still considered private property open to the public). If someone were to put a fence around their entire property line and a gate acrossed their driveway, would you agree that that would be considered private property?Glory Days;466767 wrote:Why would a warrant be needed if anyone could walk onto your driveway? Mailmen, neighbors, repo men, UPS guy, cops, theres nothing private about a driveway.
When you put a fence around your property or put up signs etc, you are taking steps to have an expectation of privacy. However until then, you have no expectation of privacy in your driveway. How you could think you have any privacy in plain view I don’t know.dwccrew;467569 wrote:What do you not understand about private property being accessible by the public? By accessible, I mean they can just walk on to it, however that is still trespassing. I don't mean it is accessible legally, like the mall is accessible (which is still considered private property open to the public). If someone were to put a fence around their entire property line and a gate acrossed their driveway, would you agree that that would be considered private property?
dwccrew;467569 wrote: Also, are you a homeowner? If you are then you would know that your driveway is your private property. You are responsible for the maintenence of it and can alter it however you please (within zoning ordinances), therefore, it is your private property. This means police can't just access your belongings that are on your private property. Your car is your private property, they should have to have a warrant to put a GPS tracking unit on it.
So with your logic, anyone can get into your car that is parked on your driveway? What if your car is parked in the street? I mean anyone can get into it, so it isn't private property, correct?
Have you read the dissenting judge's opinion on this matter? It is very enlightening on the subject and puts it in perspective.
I Wear Pants;467603 wrote:If you ask someone to leave, even if they are approacking your front door they must do so. Obviously this is different for police who witness illegal activity but still.
No one, especially the police has the right to sneak on to your property and plant tracking devices on your vehical without a warrant.
Wouldn't that fall under probable cause?Glory Days;467839 wrote:Lets take out the tracking device then. Say a cop is driving by and sees what he thinks is a stolen car based a report earlier in the day. However he cant tell because he’ll need to get a little closer to see the plate #. Should they have to get a warrant then? Or could the cop just walk up the car to see the plate # and VIN?
I bolded the parts Glory Days needs to read.2911.21 Criminal trespass.
(A) No person, without privilege to do so, shall do any of the following:
(1) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another;
(2) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, the use of which is lawfully restricted to certain persons, purposes, modes, or hours, when the offender knows the offender is in violation of any such restriction or is reckless in that regard;
(3) Recklessly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, as to which notice against unauthorized access or presence is given by actual communication to the offender, or in a manner prescribed by law, or by posting in a manner reasonably calculated to come to the attention of potential intruders, or by fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to restrict access;
(4) Being on the land or premises of another, negligently fail or refuse to leave upon being notified by signage posted in a conspicuous place or otherwise being notified to do so by the owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either.
(B) It is no defense to a charge under this section that the land or premises involved was owned, controlled, or in custody of a public agency.
(C) It is no defense to a charge under this section that the offender was authorized to enter or remain on the land or premises involved, when such authorization was secured by deception.
(D)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of criminal trespass, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.
(2) Notwithstanding section 2929.28 of the Revised Code, if the person, in committing the violation of this section, used a snowmobile, off-highway motorcycle, or all-purpose vehicle, the court shall impose a fine of two times the usual amount imposed for the violation.
(3) If an offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to two or more violations of this section or a substantially equivalent municipal ordinance, and the offender, in committing each violation, used a snowmobile, off-highway motorcycle, or all-purpose vehicle, the court, in addition to or independent of all other penalties imposed for the violation, may impound the certificate of registration of that snowmobile or off-highway motorcycle or the certificate of registration and license plate of that all-purpose vehicle for not less than sixty days. In such a case, section 4519.47 of the Revised Code applies.
(E) Notwithstanding any provision of the Revised Code, if the offender, in committing the violation of this section, used an all-purpose vehicle, the clerk of the court shall pay the fine imposed pursuant to this section to the state recreational vehicle fund created by section 4519.11 of the Revised Code.
(F) As used in this section:
(1) “All-purpose vehicle,” “off-highway motorcycle,” and
“snowmobile” have the same meanings as in section 4519.01 of the Revised Code.
(2) “Land or premises” includes any land, building, structure, or place belonging to, controlled by, or in custody of another, and any separate enclosure or room, or portion thereof.
I Wear Pants;468171 wrote:I bolded the parts Glory Days needs to read.
Notice how there isn't a section that says "except if the property is in plain view and easily accessible?"
I Wear Pants;468584 wrote:You were arguing that our driveways are not private property. They clearly are.
I Wear Pants;468671 wrote:The point is that an officer should have to have a warrant to sneak onto your property and plant tracking devices on more of your property.
Glory Days;468960 wrote:then park your car in a garage.
I shouldn't have to.Glory Days;468960 wrote:then park your car in a garage.
dwccrew;468986 wrote:Nah, they can just get a warrant. What if someone doesn't have a garage? Should they be treated differently than someone that does have a garage and can park their car in said garage? That would open a whole new can of legal worms. Just stick to getting a warrant like the 4th amendment clearly states. I have a feeling this will get overturned by the SCOTUS.
then don’t expect to have any privacy when you park your car infront of your house. Like I have said a million times now, you have to take steps to create an expectation of privacy. You may not like it, but its been upheld time and time again in courts. and remember, the vehicle was not searched or entered, they could see it from a public area(the street) and simply walked up the driveway to the car, placed the GPS and walked back.I Wear Pants;468991 wrote:I shouldn't have to.
Glory Days;469007 wrote:doubt it. look at pervious cases such as United States v Dunn. The guy had the drugs, in a barn, on his property, that was fenced in. however the barn was about 50 yards away from his house. The search was legal. This case is similar I think, although the car was close to the house, it wasn’t fenced in and was on the driveway, not around back or in a garage.
then don’t expect to have any privacy when you park your car infront of your house. Like I have said a million times now, you have to take steps to create an expectation of privacy. You may not like it, but its been upheld time and time again in courts. and remember, the vehicle was not searched or entered, they could see it from a public area(the street) and simply walked up the driveway to the car, placed the GPS and walked back.
UNITED STATES v. DUNN, 480 U.S. 294 (1987)dwccrew;469054 wrote:GD, could you post a link to the case you have cited? Thanks
I believe that was discussed somewhere. How the rich have better opportunities to create an expectation of privacy. However this is nothing new. The rich have the ability to get a better lawyer etc. unlike someone who can't afford one and is stuck with whoever is assigned by the court.dwccrew;468986 wrote:What if someone doesn't have a garage? Should they be treated differently than someone that does have a garage and can park their car in said garage? That would open a whole new can of legal worms.
I already pointed out the “Open Field” doctrine I believe earlier. Although it doesn’t exactly apply to this case, it doesn’t matter if it is trespassing. your private property that is an “open field” does not have an expecation of privacy. Which is probably somewhere along the lines of the public access which driveways and sidewalks have.I Wear Pants;469073 wrote:To place said GPS device on my car without my authorization they had to unknowingly enter my property. This is trespassing.
So because I park my car in my driveway someone is allowed to just walk up and sit on it? It wasn't searched or entered. That still isn't allowed without the owners consent.
This law will be overturned if our system works.