7 ms·

> For instance, he said, agency is now “wrestling” with the legality of whether agents can lift up the lid of a trash can without committing trespass. Um, I th

by beedogs 15y ago

> For instance, he said, agency is now “wrestling” with the legality of whether agents can lift up the lid of a trash can without committing trespass. Um, I thought it was pretty well-established that you cannot do this? Is the FBI just stupid?

ars 15y ago
I assume they are talking about garbage on the curb, where it is pretty well established that they can do this.
- pasbesoin 15y ago
  Very often, the parkway or land near curbside is public property and not personal property. You put your garbage cans there, you've "discarded" their contents. I believe the same applies to alleyways. (IANAL and I don't know the specific legal arguments.)
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - nkassis 15y ago
    Yeah I've heard this but the trash can wasn't discarded, I could see how a trash bag alone maybe since all of it is going to the trash but an actual trash can with a closed lid? What is the rule around mailbox? Would opening the mailbox door be considered trans-passing? Wouldn't that apply the same to a trash can?
    - pasbesoin 15y ago
      The mailbox is/becomes USPS (U.S. Postal Service) domain (I don't know about "property"). Which is why you'll never find handbills placed in them -- it's against the law, and the postal service will fine and/or prosecute companies that violate this. Again, I don't know all the arguments, but you can, for example, leave your bicycle on public property without losing your property rights to it. (For that matter, you can park your car on a public street.) I believe the convention is that, when you've placed your trash for pickup, you've also discarded your property rights. Where the line is, though, for example with regard to "placement"? Any lawyers want to chime in? P.S. Or, I/we could wade through the other comments in this now much larger thread.
dedward 15y ago
If the trash is at the curb and not on your property, they can. So.. if they can do that, how is that differnet than your car parked in the street? Both are in a public area. (note I'm only addressing the reason for asking the question. Evidence gathered from trash is useful too, and for evidence not on your private property, currently I believe no warrant is required (why should it be? It's no longer your private stuff, it's garbage headed for a public landfill.) Vehicles are a bit different - but if the vehicle were parked in the street, and not in a private driveway, no trespass is required to plant a tracking device. If this is now considered some kind of trespass, then the feds DO need ot re-evaluate the potential fallout from garbage-related evidence.
- mayanksinghal 15y ago
  Well on the other hand, one could also argue that when you put the trash on curb you give away any rights to it - which means that the trash becomes a public property that Feds have access to. Vehicles on the other hand, even when they are on public property still belong to the owner and hence although no trespassing is required in planting the device (inside or outside the vehicle), the Feds would still be meddling with private property.
  - kirillzubovsky 15y ago
    You know, that brings up a good point. Maybe you could make a claim that when putting garbage on the curbside, you're simply "parking" it there until the pickup in the morning. In this case, you could argue the garbage becomes public properly only after it is collected, and only by the collection services, which you would expect on regular basis. Thus you'd prevent FBI from just pick up your trash, saying "well, you were gonna give it up anyway". Thoughts?
  - karlshea 15y ago
    If you read the actual opinion (which I recommend, it's very interesting), placing the tracking device on the vehicle's undercarriage is actually trespass: "It is important to be clear about what occurred in this case: The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted." (page 4 of the opinion, 6 of the pdf) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf
newman314 15y ago
The definition of curtilage applies in this scenario. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtilage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtilage

by beedogs 15y ago

ars 15y ago

I assume they are talking about garbage on the curb, where it is pretty well established that they can do this.

pasbesoin 15y ago
Very often, the parkway or land near curbside is public property and not personal property. You put your garbage cans there, you've "discarded" their contents. I believe the same applies to alleyways. (IANAL and I don't know the specific legal arguments.)
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- nkassis 15y ago
  Yeah I've heard this but the trash can wasn't discarded, I could see how a trash bag alone maybe since all of it is going to the trash but an actual trash can with a closed lid? What is the rule around mailbox? Would opening the mailbox door be considered trans-passing? Wouldn't that apply the same to a trash can?
  - pasbesoin 15y ago
    The mailbox is/becomes USPS (U.S. Postal Service) domain (I don't know about "property"). Which is why you'll never find handbills placed in them -- it's against the law, and the postal service will fine and/or prosecute companies that violate this. Again, I don't know all the arguments, but you can, for example, leave your bicycle on public property without losing your property rights to it. (For that matter, you can park your car on a public street.) I believe the convention is that, when you've placed your trash for pickup, you've also discarded your property rights. Where the line is, though, for example with regard to "placement"? Any lawyers want to chime in? P.S. Or, I/we could wade through the other comments in this now much larger thread.

dedward 15y ago

If the trash is at the curb and not on your property, they can. So.. if they can do that, how is that differnet than your car parked in the street? Both are in a public area. (note I'm only addressing the reason for asking the question. Evidence gathered from trash is useful too, and for evidence not on your private property, currently I believe no warrant is required (why should it be? It's no longer your private stuff, it's garbage headed for a public landfill.) Vehicles are a bit different - but if the vehicle were parked in the street, and not in a private driveway, no trespass is required to plant a tracking device. If this is now considered some kind of trespass, then the feds DO need ot re-evaluate the potential fallout from garbage-related evidence.

mayanksinghal 15y ago
Well on the other hand, one could also argue that when you put the trash on curb you give away any rights to it - which means that the trash becomes a public property that Feds have access to. Vehicles on the other hand, even when they are on public property still belong to the owner and hence although no trespassing is required in planting the device (inside or outside the vehicle), the Feds would still be meddling with private property.
- kirillzubovsky 15y ago
  You know, that brings up a good point. Maybe you could make a claim that when putting garbage on the curbside, you're simply "parking" it there until the pickup in the morning. In this case, you could argue the garbage becomes public properly only after it is collected, and only by the collection services, which you would expect on regular basis. Thus you'd prevent FBI from just pick up your trash, saying "well, you were gonna give it up anyway". Thoughts?
- karlshea 15y ago
  If you read the actual opinion (which I recommend, it's very interesting), placing the tracking device on the vehicle's undercarriage is actually trespass: "It is important to be clear about what occurred in this case: The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted." (page 4 of the opinion, 6 of the pdf) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf

newman314 15y ago

The definition of curtilage applies in this scenario. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtilage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtilage