“placed the within the boundaries of where he lives, farms and hunts.”
I recognize the words, but that is a really strained sentence structure. What are they trying to say?
Placed within the boundaries sounds like my property. If I'm roaming my property and find something there that I did not put there, then I'm going to be taking it down. I'll probably even attempt to sell it.
The current state of the open fields doctrine is that your home and its "curtilage" are protected, but the "open fields" beyond that are not. The wording "lives, farms and hunts" suggests that area is his curtilage because it is where he takes part in the activities of private life. Property bounds are not really relevant because 4th amendment privacy rights and property rights are not co-extensive.
"Boundaries of where he lives, farms and hunts” makes me think they carped bombed the whole area, including a whole bunch of private property that was his and other people's. Basically nobody farms public lands. A lot of people farm their neighbor's land.
And as other commenters have pointed out, there isn't a 1:1 mapping between "not your property" and "where the .gov can stick a camera without a warrant".
There's actually legal government documents that quite literally state where your property is. Any property that is not defined as your property is not your property. It's really not a hard topic.
As long as it "just" over the property line then I guess it's not really his property then? Doubt the tax assessor gives them a break on the "just" over part of it. Are we really trying to say that property lines are gray areas? If I build my fence just over the line onto my neighbor's property, that'd be okay then, right?
This straining to justify the trespassing to place an illegal wiretap is just mind boggling.
i guess that could be read that way now that you mention it. totally didn't take it that way in my jumping to conclusions.
so, now that we've established it could be not on your property but absolutely most definitely viewing your property, time for action. Time for a sheet of plywood blocking the view. Now, knowing that it's probably an extremely wide angle lens, that playwood probably won't block the full view. Time for a bright ass light on that board that just so happens to point at the camera. Maybe a UV LED lights to make it not as annoying in case that light is too disturbing. Or, a laser light show attached to that piece of plywood that just happnes to scan back and forth across the camera lens several times at alternating heights.
As if they can't come and move the camera. I suppose eventually you could build your plywood wall around the entire perimeter of the property. In the suburbs we call that a privacy fence. A bit more costly to build on such a large plot of land however.
Okay, so now I'm starting to wonder if I'm just a sick mind or if others are just really not very creative.
So you go and move the piece of plywood. It costs the US Gov't much more money to move the thing than it will you. Stick it to the man. Plus, each time you move it, you can update the messages you've spray painted onto that piece of plywood. "Hello Mr Secret Agent Man!" "Isn't it a lovely day to be viewing my property?" "How about you go and..."
The problem with pissing off law enforcement is that they have many more resources than most people, and they care a little less about costs.
I could see that if someone were to act along the lines of your cartoon, that they would be facing an obstruction of justice charge.
I could also see a large number of building inspections and other checks that the landowner was following the law.
And quite possibly the sheriff could start setting up a traffic stop at say, the end of the driveway, where they check all passing cars for DWI. Also raising the possibility of civil forfeiture.
In Minneapolis, the police decided it was fine to fly police helicopters over residential areas at low altitudes for hours at a time, every day. This is legal, you do not own the airspace above your land. Hopefully they wouldn't notice anything suspicious, which could trigger a no-knock search of your property.
All of this is just local people. If the Feds get involved, then a person could have more serious issues.
either that or if they wrote it themselves they thought, man these jerks don't know who they're dealing with! I am going to write so smart here they'll be sorry they ever messed with me!
It takes an extremely disciplined mind to write well when angry about the thing one is writing about, otherwise you risk being completely unclear.
Comments
I recognize the words, but that is a really strained sentence structure. What are they trying to say?
Placed within the boundaries sounds like my property. If I'm roaming my property and find something there that I did not put there, then I'm going to be taking it down. I'll probably even attempt to sell it.
It sounds like they are trying to imply it was his land without actually stating as such (because it was likely just over the property border).
The current state of the open fields doctrine is that your home and its "curtilage" are protected, but the "open fields" beyond that are not. The wording "lives, farms and hunts" suggests that area is his curtilage because it is where he takes part in the activities of private life. Property bounds are not really relevant because 4th amendment privacy rights and property rights are not co-extensive.
"Boundaries of where he lives, farms and hunts” makes me think they carped bombed the whole area, including a whole bunch of private property that was his and other people's. Basically nobody farms public lands. A lot of people farm their neighbor's land.
And as other commenters have pointed out, there isn't a 1:1 mapping between "not your property" and "where the .gov can stick a camera without a warrant".
There's actually legal government documents that quite literally state where your property is. Any property that is not defined as your property is not your property. It's really not a hard topic.
As long as it "just" over the property line then I guess it's not really his property then? Doubt the tax assessor gives them a break on the "just" over part of it. Are we really trying to say that property lines are gray areas? If I build my fence just over the line onto my neighbor's property, that'd be okay then, right?
This straining to justify the trespassing to place an illegal wiretap is just mind boggling.
I think your parent meant "just over" in the opposite direction, e.g. just outside his property.
i guess that could be read that way now that you mention it. totally didn't take it that way in my jumping to conclusions.
so, now that we've established it could be not on your property but absolutely most definitely viewing your property, time for action. Time for a sheet of plywood blocking the view. Now, knowing that it's probably an extremely wide angle lens, that playwood probably won't block the full view. Time for a bright ass light on that board that just so happens to point at the camera. Maybe a UV LED lights to make it not as annoying in case that light is too disturbing. Or, a laser light show attached to that piece of plywood that just happnes to scan back and forth across the camera lens several times at alternating heights.
As if they can't come and move the camera. I suppose eventually you could build your plywood wall around the entire perimeter of the property. In the suburbs we call that a privacy fence. A bit more costly to build on such a large plot of land however.
Okay, so now I'm starting to wonder if I'm just a sick mind or if others are just really not very creative.
So you go and move the piece of plywood. It costs the US Gov't much more money to move the thing than it will you. Stick it to the man. Plus, each time you move it, you can update the messages you've spray painted onto that piece of plywood. "Hello Mr Secret Agent Man!" "Isn't it a lovely day to be viewing my property?" "How about you go and..."
The problem with pissing off law enforcement is that they have many more resources than most people, and they care a little less about costs.
I could see that if someone were to act along the lines of your cartoon, that they would be facing an obstruction of justice charge.
I could also see a large number of building inspections and other checks that the landowner was following the law.
And quite possibly the sheriff could start setting up a traffic stop at say, the end of the driveway, where they check all passing cars for DWI. Also raising the possibility of civil forfeiture.
In Minneapolis, the police decided it was fine to fly police helicopters over residential areas at low altitudes for hours at a time, every day. This is legal, you do not own the airspace above your land. Hopefully they wouldn't notice anything suspicious, which could trigger a no-knock search of your property.
All of this is just local people. If the Feds get involved, then a person could have more serious issues.
either that or if they wrote it themselves they thought, man these jerks don't know who they're dealing with! I am going to write so smart here they'll be sorry they ever messed with me!
It takes an extremely disciplined mind to write well when angry about the thing one is writing about, otherwise you risk being completely unclear.
might be to articulate the privacy issues. As in, the cameras aren't just technically on his property but they're filming his whole life