Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
look in a perfect world everyone would respect everyone else's property, and there would be no need for fences. but the reality is that if your vehicle is out in the open where anyone can walk right up to it, without having to open a gate, or jump a fence, or open a garage door, then it is fair game. note however the ruling seems to only apply to the driveway/front yard. park the vehicle around the back of the house and likely the ruling would change. but even a small cheap fence, or perhaps even a no trespassing sign, as indicated in the ruling, would then require that law enforcement would then need a warrant. is it right? again not really, but it is the reality of the situation. will it be overturned at the supreme court? possibly, possibly not it just depends on the arguments made, and the judges opinions.
In a perfect world, no one would murder anyone else, but we still have laws against that. Anything not fenced in is "fair game"? Laws can't touch it unless there's a fence? This is not a good argument for you.
Your posts are confusing because you seem to be arguing in favor of the ruling by reiterating that it is "the reality of the situation" as a counter to my posts, which implies to me that I am wrong because I have not given in and accepted the way it is right now as OK; yet, you also say you don't really agree with it.
I understand what "the reality of it" is. The point here is to discuss if "the reality of it" is right or not. And I've been making my point as to why it's not, while you are 'countering' my points by basically implying, "So what, that's the way it is, so shut up."
In a perfect world, no one would murder anyone else, but we still have laws against that. Anything not fenced in is "fair game"? Laws can't touch it unless there's a fence? This is not a good argument for you.
Your posts are confusing because you seem to be arguing in favor of the ruling by reiterating that it is "the reality of the situation" as a counter to my posts, which implies to me that I am wrong because I have not given in and accepted the way it is right now as OK; yet, you also say you don't really agree with it.
I understand what "the reality of it" is. The point here is to discuss if "the reality of it" is right or not. And I've been making my point as to why it's not, while you are 'countering' my points by basically implying, "So what, that's the way it is, so shut up."
until the supreme court rules otherwise, as long as there is no barrier to prevent just anyone from walking up to your vehicle, then there is NO expectation of privacy. live with it.
from the linked article in the first post, did you read it?
Doesn't surprise me about California, they have been throwing their rights away for years. Wouldn't surprise me if the state confiscated all property in the next 10 years.
until the supreme court rules otherwise, as long as there is no barrier to prevent just anyone from walking up to your vehicle, then there is NO expectation of privacy. live with it.
Good thing I live in Texas.
Quote:
This case began in 2007, when Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents decided to monitor Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon resident who they suspected was growing marijuana. They snuck onto his property in the middle of the night and found his Jeep in his driveway, a few feet from his trailer home. Then they attached a GPS tracking device to the vehicle's underside.
Quote:
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Doesn't surprise me about California, they have been throwing their rights away for years. Wouldn't surprise me if the state confiscated all property in the next 10 years.
Too bad Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush appointed the three judges (two by Reagan, one by Bush) who issued this travesty of a ruling.
Law enforcement in all jurisdictions constantly push for expanded powers. It was just bad luck that this case happened to be assigned to a panel of staunch conservative judges, rather than judges typical of the Ninth Circuit, who normally side with individuals and against law enforcement in cases where the state wants to erode Fourth Amendment protections.
look in a perfect world everyone would respect everyone else's property, and there would be no need for fences. but the reality is that if your vehicle is out in the open where anyone can walk right up to it, without having to open a gate, or jump a fence, or open a garage door, then it is fair game. note however the ruling seems to only apply to the driveway/front yard. park the vehicle around the back of the house and likely the ruling would change. but even a small cheap fence, or perhaps even a no trespassing sign, as indicated in the ruling, would then require that law enforcement would then need a warrant. is it right? again not really, but it is the reality of the situation. will it be overturned at the supreme court? possibly, possibly not it just depends on the arguments made, and the judges opinions.
Your outlook on reality is really bizarre. I also bet you'd be the first one to call the police and say "Someone tresspassed on my private property and vandalized my car" if someone vandalized your car in your own driveway. Get real and please stop the fake support of this just because it is Obama doing it.
until the supreme court rules otherwise, as long as there is no barrier to prevent just anyone from walking up to your vehicle, then there is NO expectation of privacy. live with it.
You seem happy about it.
See, my whole previous post was about how you were "countering" my points as to why this isn't right with a 'this is how it is, shut up and deal with it' attitude. Your counter to that? You just do it again.
Nothing like a red herring to pretend you're winning an argument. Funny thing is, from what you've said, it seems that you agree with me that this isn't right.
The problem isn't that they can attach aGPS, it's that they can do so without a warrent, IMO. I wonder how long it will take before a service comes out to detect an attached GPS? And what kind of market there would be for such units? As someone with a twisted sense of humor, I'd like to find one of these on my rig...and them put it on, oh, say the mayor's, or sherrif's car. Or maybe a train.
Have we, as a people, really become so dumbed down and afraid of our shadows that we will accept this level of intrusion in the name of supposed "safety"? I suppose so, a large portion of this country accepts gun control because it makes them feel better. Country is going down the crapper.
Lets take this a step further. Does this ruling mean that I, as a private citizen can put a GPS on any law enforcement vehicle I see about and monitor it's location? Maybe publish it on a web site? If there is no expectation of privacy in your driveway, there isn't at the donut shop.
How about any elected official? We have a few where it would be interesting to see where they are spending their time.
This law would seem to shield anyone in another's driveway from prosecution for criminal tresspas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
