If I woke up one morning and found a large piece of ??? sticking out of the roof of my house or car and, in the process of examining the thing, get bum-rushed by MPs or whatever…how can anybody not think Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
In real estate law, the right of first responders, investigators and the like to come onto your property is called “police power”. The government rights any property is subject to include taxation (obvious enough), eminent domain (the right to take property for a public use, with compensation owed the property owner), escheat (when someone dies and doesn’t leave his property to anyone and there are no heirs, it goes to the government), and police power.
A plane crash would certainly qualify others to come onto the land under the principle of police power. The farmer would be able to sue the airline to recover any damages, of course.
So out of curiosity, did anyone affected consult an attorney to see if there was anything they could do about it? Like ask a judge to issue a cease and desist order on what certainly appear to be illegal searches?
If the property is returned to the owner for his use, the airline, airplane manufacturer, pilot or whoever is determined to be responsible would have to pay for any damages. If a public use is decided - such as a government-owned memorial - then the government power of eminent domain would come into play. The government would first negotiate to purchase the property, but if an agreement could not be reached, the government would have the right to take the property under eminent domain, and the property owner would received just compensation (payment at full market value).
I live near the Flight 93 site in southern Pennsylvania, and this is just what happened there. The crash site was a farm. The property owner tried to negotiate an extremely high price to sell the land to the federal government, claiming the site now has extraordinary cultural and historic value. Uh uh, no dice, mister. It was determined that he was entitled to receive compensation for the value of the land as farm land (or whatever the highest and best use was before the crash), not some pie-in-the-sky value due to the crash.
The above pertains to properties in the US. I have no idea about other countries.
Under * Mapp v. Ohio * (U. S. Supreme Court) searches are restricted, per the “particularity clause” in the 4th Amendment.
Well, if there’s a crash it’s probably hot, and they are pursuing the investigation. 
Libya did eventually pay damages to the families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing, as part of the Gaddafi regime’s rapprochement with the international community in the mid-'00s. However, I’m not sure whether property damage was part of that same settlement, or whether said property owners were SOL for nearly 20 years.
Yeah, I get now that it was a joke, but it was pretty subtle in the grand scheme of things. 
I can’t imagine myself having much problem with people coming onto my property to remove 200 corpses.
Hot pursuit is an exception to the 4th Amendment warrant requirement, and applies to direct pursuit of suspected criminals - not flaming wreckage.
If they search your car and find crack and kiddie porn in the trunk, is it admissible in court? I would assume not.
Regards,
Shodan
A more practical question: When shit like that happens, does the “government” (that is, whoever is running the show) make any attempt to accommodate the needs and convenience of the residents? That is, are you totally scrod or merely “somewhat” scrod?
When the “government” takes over your neighborhood or farm in such cases, are they at least obligated to try to minimize the inconvenience?
Are you allowed to continue living in your homes, or does the whole neighborhood have to move into motels or friends’ living rooms? Do you all get compensated for that (besides the guy whose house got squished)? Are you allowed access to your home to get at your personal belongings as needed? Or are you chased out with only the clothes on your back? Are you strip-searched at every entry and exit?
See Post # 25, above.
No. But if they find kiddy porn and tell the state about it the exclusionary rule won’t bar it from a subsequent non-criminal action (ie., you could lose your government job or welfare or driving privileges or any of a host of other things.)
Or takes a beatin’ and keeps on sneakin’.
Was this the crash in 1997 in Maryland?
Title 49 USC gives statutory authority for the NTSB and FAA to investigate such crashes. Any hinderance is Obstruction or such.
The 4th does not apply as no person has an expectation of privacy in an accident/crime scene investigation as noted.
If we call this the “open fields” doctrine, Mapp has no bearing.
If police “have a right” to be at a place, then anything in plain view is fair game.
The govt. certainly has a right to enter private property to investigate, no warrant is needed.
I would think that there can be an initial assumption that there is at least the possibility a crime was committed, and the crash site is therefore a crime scene. If it’s a crime scene, the police, FBI, or whomever, can restrict access even to you, although if I’m still there, I’d be setting up folding chairs and charging admission to the onlookers, with extra for parking. I might even make cookies and lemonade.
As far as letting you have access if you aren’t already there: I have been denied access by car to my apartment when traffic was rerouted for the effing Indy 500. Gawd I hate auto races. I don’t know what people who need medication or can’t walk far (and thus park several blocks away, if they can find some place). Apparently there is no absolute right to go from wherever you are to your place of residence by the means of your choice. However, as far as actually barring you from going in, I think there would have to be a danger. If you were being relocated, and came back from work, I think they would have to allow you to get medicine, pets, clothes, and other necessities, possibly even religious items.
Also, search warrants are for specific things. If the police have a warrant to search for pieces of an airplane, and they find a bloody knife, they can’t confiscate the knife. The only exception, I think (IANAL) is if you verbally threatened to use it against them if they didn’t let you go NOW.
This is slightly off-topic but there was an episode of the A&E show *Intervention *about a woman who was fairly wealthy, divorced, severely depressed, and lived alone in a modest-sized mansion. Anyway, at one point she clearly tries to kill herself by swallowing a bottle of pills, but none of the A&E camera people or crew actually saw or filmed her do it. But they could tell by her attitude over the past day or so and, more importantly, by her sudden incoherence that she clearly had. So they called 911. But because no one had actually witnessed it, and it was her property and she was still coherent enough to say she was refusing the EMTs entry to her property, they all had to sit there and wait (the crew inside, the EMTs outside) until she became unresponsive to the point that it was reasonably clear she was in distress. Then the EMTs rushed in and (thankfully) saved her.
Was one of the most frustrating things I’ve ever seen…