3 ms·

I learned something today. The 4th ammendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable

I learned something today. The 4th ammendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Note its not private property so if you have a large multi-acre plot of land apparently you do not have a right to prevent it from being searched without a warrant (except the area immediately surrounding a residence). This has been upheld in court in a previous case where the defendent's land was searched without a warrant and they found a marijuana field a mile away from the home. This ruling extends that precedent to include hidden surveillance cameras.

s_henry_paulson 14y ago
Note its not private property Actually it is private property, and the size of the property does not matter either. The court ruled the way it did because the area of the property that was monitored was deemed to fall under the category of "open fields" This would likely be different if it could be shown that the owner was actively maintaining this area of his property, or erected some sort of barrier, or something to ensure that the area of his property he would like protected is not just an open field. It wouldn't even necessarily have to be a residence, although this would be the most unquestionable. Even still, I think it is a bad ruling, and I hope that it is overturned.