Is bigdruid someone with a name change?
I’m not going to argue with you because you’re the lawyer and I’m not but I’m wondering, if it was legal, why did she hesitate instead of whipping out “Actually it is under such and such a law” ? Obviously there was a point where she figured he was right and figured “fuck it” and that’s when she went onto his property.
Along with that, would it be legal for me to just wander across his property because it’s unfenced? From what you’re saying it seems like it would be and if that’s the case why even buy land when any one can just waltz across it anytime they want? Obviously there’s something wrong with the whole picture.
Final question to clarify, if he had fenced the property would it still be legal and do you need council/county permission to build a fence on a property. On that note - if you do need permission, couldn’t the government obviously just deny people the ability to build a fence to negate the need for a warrant ?
"“Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §§1, 2, & 3;Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959; 24 F.R.6865; a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE border on three sides. The president of the United States designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief.”
Their basic argument is that, because the courtroom had a military flag on display rather than a civilian flag, that designated the courtroom as a military courtroom, and because the defendant was not in the military, there was no jurisdiction.
I’m not a student of the militia movement, but I have seen this argument referenced several times over the years. My recollection is that the argument went just about as far as the guy’s argument in the video telling the woman she had no authority to enter his property.
There’s quite a body of law regarding flag appearance, usage, and treatment. Most of which is pretty much routinely ignored by both the populace and civil authorities. The military tends to be somewhat more careful about it, I am told.
Supertanker is talking about whether information gleaned from a warrantless search of someone’s open, unfenced field is admissable. It is.
However, in this case, the gentleman was standing at the edge of his yard saying not to come onto his property. That beats the shit out of a fence with a sign on it any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Officials of the United States Government can get away with traipsing into an open field, peeking around, and then getting a warrant or arresting you if they find marijuana in the field. But sadly, they don’t have the right to just waltz in without a warrant over your objections unless the circumstances necessitate a warrantless search.
See, the government and private citizens are similar in that they both have to stay the fuck off your land if you say, except the government, upon applying for a warrant, can come onto your property for a limited time and prusuant to a stated purpose of investigating specific and substantiated criminal wrongdoing. Normal people can’t.
Either way, bigdruid, that sounds like communism to me. Everyone living together on land owned communally?
Confidential to Nick Walter: Agribusiness concerns are privately owned, and it is the desire to manage them well for serious profit that leads to the productivity. There will always be farmhands who don’t have such a big stake in the harvest, but whether Farmer Brown himself gives a shit, whoever he may be, Farmer Joe Brown or the Farmer Brown Corporation of Greater Toluca Lake is all important.
If the person managing the asset believes he can gain nothing from efforts and expenditures to maximize the profits, it will go to total shit. Example? The Milwaukee Brewers under Bud Selig and his family.
This replaces Godwin’s Law.
Interesting. Thank you for explanation.
This is more of a practical issue than a Constitutional one. The presence of a peace officer at an inspection is very unusual, the huge, huge majority of inspections are carried out by the inspector alone. The only time my inspectors have one along is when they are worried about being attacked, and request an escort. So, the peace officer’s job then is to prevent escalation, which to me is why they seem hesitant. They don’t want to just barge onto the property, but there’s obviously something on the property they need to inspect. They’re trying to get that done while keeping things as calm as possible.
The Constitution only applies to government action, so the analysis is different than civil trespass. You can post “No Trespassing” signs on a open field, but that won’t matter in a Fourth Amendment analysis, since there is an exception for entering an open field. It is assumed that the government cannot enter property unless some exception applies (plain view, open field, warrant, exigent circumstances). If there is an open field with no observable problems, then the inspector cannot enter without permission or a warrant.
The Fourth Amendment protections are limited by a reasonable expectation of privacy. If something is truly an open field, it is basically impossible to have an expectation of privacy there. If a violation is visible, it can be inspected. A property owner has to take some additional action, like enclosing an area, or covering it, to establish an expectation of privacy for that enclosed area. Close to a dwelling, the privacy expectation increases, which is the idea of the “curtilage.” Fence your backyard, and nobody’s going in there without a warrant or exigent circumstances. However, if it can still be observed from adjacent property (entered with permission of the adjacent owner) or any public place (a hill nearby, for example), then that will give enough facts to support a warrant.
Most urbanized areas have restrictions on front yard fencing, for aesthetic reasons. The ones I see are either no fences in the front yard (usually defined as everything between the front of the main structure and the public right-of-way), or fences limited to three feet.
The redneck reference was to the guy in the video, not you. The “crypto-fascist” reference was a meta-reference to the republican presidential candidate thread, not an inference that you are actually a fascist.
And you brought up Texas, not me. I just poked a little fun at it. Didn’t mean to cause offense, honestly.
The right to own property is the foundation of personal freedom, as seen in such obscure documents as the Magna Carta.
Just saying this doesn’t make it so. The Magna Carta is primarily about civil liberties, not property ownership. I think that civil liberties can (and do) exist even without private property ownership. Go through the bill of rights - tell me which ones use private property as their “foundation”. Maybe the 3rd amendment, protecting against having soldiers quartered in your home, if you want to stretch a point.
You don’t actually have to take away everyone’s rights to make sure Goofus doesn’t turn his backyard into a nuclear waste dump.
Really? Because we don’t seem to be doing a great job of it. We’re great at cleaning up after the fact, at taxpayer cost (that’s why we have an EPA Superfund) - but we’re not so great at actually regulating activities prior to there being “hundreds of sick and dying citizens being poisoned by asbestos contamination”. And I put this squarely at the feet of the Grand American Tradition of Private Property.
Edit: Finally, the textbook definition of Communism is an economic system where there’s common ownership of the means of production. I’m describing a system of government where raw land is owned in common and is then leased to individuals with restrictions as to what they can do on that land - it’s not the same thing at all. Most companies don’t “own their own land” - I’ll bet that for pretty much every single one of you who works in an office, that office is leased by your employer, not owned. What I’m talking about is no different.
Anyhow, it’s really a moot point. Americans hold on to their property even tighter than they do their guns - while we might see more environmental restrictions, we’re never going to see a shift to full-bore statism in the US.
You know how people say “OMG if so and so gets elected I’m moving?”
If you DO see a shift to full-bore statism in the US to the point where personal property is seen as subservient to the state, you’ll see ME move.
(And yes, the - Republican - abuse of eminent domain to justify things like new malls and business districts scares the crap out of me.)
I’ve got a related question that came up in my head reading this discussion. Let’s say that a hypothetical 51st state joined the United States and that it had a State Constitution which was totally at odds with the federal one: no freedom of speech, no property rights, etc. For whatever reason.
If Joe Bob here had his plot of land in such a state, would this situation be governed by the federal Constitution or the State? If he claimed that the fed gives him protection against warrantless S&S, could a state health official claim state rules not requiring a warrant? Does a state constitution override the fed in cases of differences? Would this be an example of the 9th and 10th amendments at work?
I think the Civil War answered that question for you.
Your question is answered by the Incorporation Doctrine.