-
Help Support TNDeer:
Tennessee Judges Declare Warrantless Searches on Private Land Unconstitutional
- Thread starter HOOK
- Start date
I kinda know the story, but I don't know if I ever heard what happened to the TWRA agents that did this. Did they keep their jobs??
I guess we are lucky here that officers don't just wander around on peoples property.
You are giving scenarios where an officer sees activity to investigate. I'm asking do they routinely walk through peoples property for the hell of it because they think they might see something if they do. Not that they have seen something because they haven't, because they can't
So they have not see anything but they might. You're telling me that happens millions of times a day? Because that's what is being discussed here
Did I say that? I thought this was an adult conversation.
We all get it. You feel violated by LE. What these clowns did was wrong. They either knew that or their idiots. But saying a cop can't walk across an open field or patrol private property is just as ignorant.
I wouldnt say ignorant, if i dont call ya i dont want ya, i will take care of my own problems until i cant, then it wont matter. Stay out means just thatDid I say that? I thought this was an adult conversation.
We all get it. You feel violated by LE. What these clowns did was wrong. They either knew that or their idiots. But saying a cop can't walk across an open field or patrol private property is just as ignorant.
Carlos
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2014
- Messages
- 5,737
I believe they did.
I don't think many of those guys ever get fired, no matter what kinda cockamamie bs they get into.
Did I say that? I thought this was an adult conversation.
We all get it. You feel violated by LE. What these clowns did was wrong. They either knew that or their idiots. But saying a cop can't walk across an open field or patrol private property is just as ignorant.
No, I've asked the question twice and you've never answered it, lol. Do they simply walk through peoples yards, that's the 3rd time.
I've never been violated by L.E.O. I've never had a negative conversation or run in with L.E.O.
I'm friends with a bunch of them, I talk to L.E.O. in some form or fashion every day, and shoot with them often they include local police, state police and wildlife officers.
They all stay off peoples property unless they're asked though.
Last edited:
Headhunter
Well-Known Member
I agree but a huge difference in what you say and what the TWRA said.
The TWRA actually said if the plaintiffs did not want game wardens (I believe they used the term law enforcement) then they (the property owners) should desist hunting.
You say if you saw someone creeping around, you would check that out, which I believe a majority of people are good with and appreciate.
Are you saying as law enforcement, they can drive past anywhere and think that "there might be a person there, NOT that there is anything wrong, suspicious, safety related, possible laws being broken, law enforcement can just go where ever they want, when ever they want, stay as long as they want, conceal themselves as they deem needed and since they may make all the decisions about trespassing, then that is ok?"
I say NOPE!! Not even close. Read what the TWRA stated in their arguments, no way it is constitutional.
Headhunter
Well-Known Member
Even if the TWRA has not entered the Plaintiffs' properties since 2018, it continues to assert its power to do so. The TWRA has asserted a continuing right to enter upon the Plaintiffs' properties. At oral argument, the TWRA suggested that if the Plaintiffs want to keep the TWRA off of their land in the future that they should desist in hunting.
Headhunter
Well-Known Member
During the appeal, attorneys for TWRA argued, "that government agents may enter upon constitutionally protected property without disclosing their presence or retaining a record of their having done so, conceal themselves thereupon for a time period deemed appropriate by the government agents themselves, and search the property for violations of wildlife laws. The TWRA contends that this is reasonable because the officers limit themselves to circumstances where they believe that hunting activities are taking place."
I believe my private property is my property and anyone entering that property without my permission or a warrant is trespassing.
Some people believe government has ultimate authority and can come and go as they wish.
That is the heart of the issue. My views reflect the views of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. Some others' views reflect modern big government's views that we are subjects and they will do as they please. I'm constantly shocked that people are just fine with giving up their rights to the G because they feel safer and it makes them warm and fuzzy.
Some people believe government has ultimate authority and can come and go as they wish.
That is the heart of the issue. My views reflect the views of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. Some others' views reflect modern big government's views that we are subjects and they will do as they please. I'm constantly shocked that people are just fine with giving up their rights to the G because they feel safer and it makes them warm and fuzzy.
Absolutely. I answered it in post #20.
BS
that's ridiculous. Maybe if they are donut eating fatazzes. But if they are doing thier job it involves getting out and checking things out. Often on private property.
If you are out on patrol at midnight and you see a flashlight in my yard surrounded by a privacy fence (possible burglar) your badge would give you the authority to open my gate and look around in my backyard?
That's what I'm saying/asking.
None of the officers I know walk around randomly in people's yards/woods/etc.
Because it's illegal. Apparently some officers think that badge gives them the authority to do anything they want.
peytoncreekhunter
Well-Known Member
I may be wrong but at the time they put the cameras out there weren't they still working under the open fields clause that was deemed legal by the USSC. If so then why would they lose their job? Now, if they do it now that it's been struck down that would be a different story.
Biggun4214
Well-Known Member
Do you think the LEO's in Kentucky are asking permission to search for the fugitive? Even using a drone is a search. I bet they don't have search warrants to search other than curtlege either.
The Open Field Doctrine keeps being brought up as pertaining to moonshine, if that's the case then the Second Amendment would truly only pertain to muskets.
Also the Federal Courts ruled in favor of the Federal Agents involved.
The Open Field Doctrine keeps being brought up as pertaining to moonshine, if that's the case then the Second Amendment would truly only pertain to muskets.
Also the Federal Courts ruled in favor of the Federal Agents involved.
I have to be able to articulate why I'm there. If I can I'm not required to have authorization and I'm not violating your rights. (In my opinion. You of course certainly have the right to file a suit against me)
If my articulation is that I suspect you of a crime; I need a warrant.
I'll stop our conversation now. You, and others here are not going to agree with me and that's fine. That's what a discussion is. But this isn't a discussion anymore, it's just an argument.
megalomaniac
Well-Known Member
Maybe I'm mistaken, but i think the argument is that TWRA should be held to the same standard as other law enforcement officers in regards to private property rights.
In the examples above, police DO have the right to enter private property without a warrant under 'exigent circumstances'...when they feel a crime is currently being committed which would result in damage or loss to person or property.
Same should apply to TWRA in my opinion. They should be able to enter private property without a warrant only under 'exigent circumstances'... when any reasonable LEO would also feel a crime is actively being committed which would result in damage or loss to person, property, or in the case of TWRA...game.
But entering a property just because someone is actively hunting at the time does not meet the criteria for 'exigent circumstances'. There should be actual evidence of a crime being committed before entering (seeing kernels of corn spilled at the gate, hearing automatic gunfire, etc, etc, etc... anything that would lead any reasonable LEO to suspect a crime is being committed at that time. Just trouncing on private property owners rights on a fishing expedition does not meet that standard in my opinion.
In the examples above, police DO have the right to enter private property without a warrant under 'exigent circumstances'...when they feel a crime is currently being committed which would result in damage or loss to person or property.
Same should apply to TWRA in my opinion. They should be able to enter private property without a warrant only under 'exigent circumstances'... when any reasonable LEO would also feel a crime is actively being committed which would result in damage or loss to person, property, or in the case of TWRA...game.
But entering a property just because someone is actively hunting at the time does not meet the criteria for 'exigent circumstances'. There should be actual evidence of a crime being committed before entering (seeing kernels of corn spilled at the gate, hearing automatic gunfire, etc, etc, etc... anything that would lead any reasonable LEO to suspect a crime is being committed at that time. Just trouncing on private property owners rights on a fishing expedition does not meet that standard in my opinion.
i they tresspassed close enough to see the corn kernels they already trespassing!!! get off my land…..
