I recall now that the Supreme Court has held that because “No Trespassing” signs are routinely disobeyed, they are not sufficient to make your property private. Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 179 (1984)
See post #33. You too Acid Lamp. You are both conflating the question of whether something is a search with whether the sniff should justify going inside the house.
We were discussing that in another thread, that is a 4th AM “Open fields” case, not relevant here.
Doesn’t matter at all to me. The only reason to “search” is for the detection of a crime. Presuppsosition of innocence, coupled with the necessity of warrants should be more than enough to counter your argument here.
Read New York v. Class, the police opened the car door to view the PIN, NOT a search.
On the contrary, it is highly relevant here. The question is whether you can close off an otherwise public area (i.e., your porch) by posting signs withholding permission, effectively making people who go on your porch trespassers. Since the Court has already said that you cannot do so with an open field, by what reasoning should the porch be different? You might say, because it’s a porch, but that’s a distinction, not a reason. Why does the difference matter with respect to the principle in question, namely, whether a concedely public space becomes private by the posting of signs?
WHat is the drug dog if not a tool for searching for drugs ?
Would this change if the tool was an electronic nose that had zero chance of error?
Does a ‘hit’ enable the officer to proceed without a warrant?
Is there any chance of abuse of said tool for other purposes where following the guidelines to obtain warrants might help to prevent?
What I meant specifically was, “Open fields” have LESS 4th AM protection, period, and a No trespassing sign is irrelevant in that regard.
NON state actors are usually not bound by the constitution.
That’s what it is.
The question of whether it’s a search or not does not change based on the reliability, under current law.
[Quote=simster]
Does a ‘hit’ enable the officer to proceed without a warrant?
[/quote]
This is an open question, as discussed earlier in the thread. But it is also a separate question from whether it’s a search.
Definitely. But again, not relevant to whether it’s a search.
That’s not correct. Open fields, like porches, are both considered non-private spaces under Fourth Amendment law. Posting a “No Trespassing” sign doesn’t make an open field private. Why does it make a porch private, in your view?
That’s true, but irrelevant. The relevant point is that we calibrate the Fourth Amendment’s recognition of privacy based on what you open to view of non-state actors.
It is a search - it is a search that is specific and only applies to one ‘class of items’, by definition illegal - and it allows access to areas that an officer would not get in ‘plain sight’.
Original post by Elendil’s hier;
From Rhines v. Bailiss (2005), 140 Ohio Misc.2d 5:
…the “‘right to communicate and persuade [does] not include the right to trespass’ on another’s rights.” Cleveland v. Sundermeier (1989), 48 Ohio App.3d 204, 549 N.E.2d 561, quoting Cleveland v. Egeland (1986), 26 Ohio App.3d 83, 26 O.B.R. 258, 497 N.E.2d 1383. “[E]ach householder [has] the full right to decide whether he will receive strangers as visitors.” Martin v. Struthers (1943), 319 U.S. 141, 63 S.Ct. 862, 87 L.Ed. 1313. The defendant’s wife did not ask the plaintiff [a Jehovah’s Witness] to leave the premises, but if she had, the plaintiff would have been obliged to comply. A homeowner may also post a “no solicitors” sign to avoid unwanted religious, political, or commercial contacts, or even Halloween trick-or-treaters. Watchtower [Bible & Tract Society of N.Y., Inc. v. Stratton (2002), 536 U.S. 150]; Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1980), 444 U.S. 620, 100 S.Ct. 826, 63 L.Ed.2d 73…
One element of Ohio’s trespassing law is;
(4) Being on the land or premises of another, negligently fail or refuse to leave upon being notified by signage posted in a conspicuous place or otherwise being notified to do so by the owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either.
If you read the opinion I cited, you’ll note that the Court held that the police might well be trespassing, but that this would be irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment.
True, as the Exclusionary Rule ONLY applies to Constitutional violations, NOT statutory ones, and most states follow this. I do know though in TX, they include statutory violations though in the ER.
And since the Court recognized in *Jones *that trespass now does have some relevance, I suppose you could argue that *Oliver *is outdated.
Not really, as an auto is not an open field! Trespass upon the person is different from trespass upon the property, comparing Jones to Oliver that is.
That’s not how legal reasoning works. It is a different set of facts, but the question is whether the difference matters–whether the principle is relevant to both factual categories. Before, trespass was categorically irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment. That’s not true anymore. So there’s some reason to think a different result might obtain under Oliver. Jones doesn’t hold that, of course, but that wasn’t what I was suggesting.
We also have to remember, Jones concerned an AUTOMOBILE, and as previously ruled, there is a lesser expectation of privacy there.
True, the court ruled a SW is required, that is fact, but the 2 doctrines are not conflicting, IMO.
We have a lot of great and knowlegable lawyers on this site but can I hijack this thread to point out that Richard Parker is doing an especially ass-kicking job in this thread educating us IANALs. Bricker, lawbuff and bearflag always do a great job analyzing the law and cases for us and this thread is no exception (maybe for bearflag since I don’t think he’s posted).
Reading this thread makes me feel like I’ve taken a law class on the 4th Amendment.
Why thanks, I even sent Richard a PM telling him he was very good. Since I sent it, I guess I can tell that on the board.
I did take Criminal law as my Major in College, and I do “attempt” to keep up with it.
Of course back then Terry v. Ohio, was a so called recent case, and now look at the law that has been ruled on from it.
As a side note, the 4th AM can also bind a private entity, little known fact.