Gov't cameras hidden on private property because of the Open Fields doctrine

This seems ripe for legal challenge and needs to be done, methinks.

https://www.agweb.com/article/govern...me-open-fields

Quote:

---

Seated at his kitchen table, finishing off the remains of a Saturday breakfast, Hunter Hollingsworth’s world was rocked by footsteps on his front porch and pounding at the door, punctuated by an aggressive order: “Open up or we’ll kick the door down.”

Surrounded on all sides of his house, and the driveway blocked, Hollingsworth was the target of approximately 10 federal and state wildlife officials packing pistols, shotguns and rifles. And what was Hollingsworth’s crime? Drugs, armed robbery, assault, money laundering? Not quite.

Months prior, in 2018, the Tennessee landowner removed a game camera secretly strapped to a tree on his private land by wildlife officials in order to monitor his activity without apparent sanction or probable cause. Repeat: Hollingsworth’s residence was searched by U.S. government and state officials, dressed to the nines in assault gear, seeking to regain possession of a trail camera—the precise camera they had surreptitiously placed on his private acreage after sneaking onto his property at night, loading the camera with active SD and SIM cards, and zip-tying the device roughly 10’ high up a tree—all without a warrant.

---

What the hell?

Seems like a great way to stir the pot, and widen the urban/rural cultural divide. NOT.

Some in government just don’t understand that people want to be left alone to live in peace.

Apparently folks are forgetting just how patriotic the Patriot Act and related regulations serving to diminish the Bill of Rights actually are. :rolleyes:

For shame.

Quote:

---

The Institute for Justice (IJ), a national libertarian law firm and legal advocacy group representing clients pro bono, has taken on both the Rainwaters and Hollingsworth cases. Tennessee could become the first state in 20 years to reject Open Fields.

---

Quote:

---

Ironically, the announced entry and search of Hollingsworth’s home required a warrant; the secret entry and hidden search of Hollingsworth’s private land required no warrant. The distinction is a capsule version of the Open Fields doctrine.

---

Regarding the judge who dismissed Hollingsworth's 4th Amendment case against TWRA:

Quote:

---

In 2003, Anderson became a United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Tennessee. On September 6, 2007, he was nominated by President George W. Bush to a seat on the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee vacated by James Dale Todd. Anderson was confirmed by the United States Senate on April 10, 2008, and received his commission on May 21, 2008. He became Chief Judge on March 18, 2017.

---

I worked summers in Tennesse during my college years. It's a beautiful place with great people, and I wish them the best of fortune in settling TWRA's hash.

First, the open fields doctrine is pretty well settled and has been around a long time. I'd imagine that most people that raise hell about it don't fully understand it.

Second, there is a Tennessee Supreme Court ruling discussing the open fields doctrine (State v Wert), and ruling a search unlawful because there was a fence around the field and "no trespassing signs." The search (entry onto the property and mounting the cameras) will probably be ruled unlawful at the state-level.

These guys may win a civil suit in Tennessee (the federal suit was thrown out), but it's hard to say, because we only have one side of the story.

The Hollingsworth guy was charged (and pleaded guilty) in federal court, FWIW. I don't think that's mentioned in the article.

EDIT: I'd expect no less from the possum police.

@ssb

Not saying I like it, but SCOTUS ruled this type of search to be legal in 1984. This predates the PATRIOT USA act and comes down to how SCOTUS ruled the Fourth Amendment applies. Quotes are from the article.

Quote:

---

The vast majority of Americans assume law enforcement needs a warrant to carry out surveillance, but for roughly a century, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has ruled that private land—is not so private. Fourth Amendment protections against “unreasonable searches and seizures” expressed in the Bill of Rights only apply to an individual’s immediate dwelling and curtilage, according to SCOTUS. Curtilage is an arcane term loosely translated as the area directly around a home, or the yard.

In 1924, Hester v. United States set up the Open Fields framework and said the U.S. Constitution does not extend to most land: “the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their ‘persons, houses, papers, and effects,’ is not extended to the open fields.” Significantly, Open Fields is translated beyond its literal sense, and basically is defined as general acreage: woods, fields, farmland, barren ground, and more.

Further, in 1984, SCOTUS gave additional strength to Open Fields in Oliver v. United States: “open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance. There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops, that occur in open fields.”

---

Since there is no expectation of privacy, there is no need for a warrant.

Quote:

---

Hollingsworth filed a complaint (Hollingsworth v. TWRA) over the game camera in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee Eastern Division, alleging violation of his constitutional rights, and on Oct. 21, 2019, Judge S. Thomas Anderson dismissed Hollingsworth’s suit, partially due to reliance on the Open Fields doctrine.

Bottom line, a federal judge told Hollingsworth he had no reasonable expectation of privacy on his farm, and that his Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by TWRA’s trespass and camera installation.

Anderson wrote: “It follows that Defendants (TWRA) mounted the camera in what can only be described as ‘open field,’ an area beyond the scope of the Fourth Amendment’s protections. Without some particular allegation to show that Defendants conducted a warrantless search of his home or the curtilage of the home, Plaintiff has failed to allege a Fourth Amendment violation.”

---

https://media3.giphy.com/media/d2Z4i...WBW0/giphy.gif

Well, I read the lawsuit. Open fields is pretty well established doctrine and is certainly not new. I don't know anything about TN specific case law.

However:

Quote:

---

A branch on the tree appeared to have been cut to give the camera a clear view of
the property

---

Would not seem to fall under Open Fields. If you're going to manipulate things, my understanding is a warrant is going to be required. Note I do not frequently make use of open fields doctrine and do not claim my opinion is in anyway definitive on the matter.

I'm not sure I'm buying they just randomly put cameras on his property by whim and whim alone though as in the complaint:

95. In October 2019, Hunter agreed to plead guilty to one count of dove baiting, to
pay a $3,000 fine, and to forfeit his Tennessee hunting privileges for three years; the remaining
charges were dropped.


I'd likely remove any strange game camera I found on my rural property and I do understand the privacy concerns. Who doesn't like to urinate in their woods? And when it's cold, that could be embarrassing...

*IF* things are as presented, I think this is something the legislature should address. Regardless of the permissiveness of case law, TN could be more restrictive and pass legislation banning the warrantless placing of cameras.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TC215

First, the open fields doctrine is pretty well settled and has been around a long time. I'd imagine that most people that raise hell about it don't fully understand it.

Second, there is a Tennessee Supreme Court ruling discussing the open fields doctrine (State v Wert), and ruling a search unlawful because there was a fence around the field and "no trespassing signs." The search (entry onto the property and mounting the cameras) will probably be ruled unlawful at the state-level.

These guys may win a civil suit in Tennessee (the federal suit was thrown out), but it's hard to say, because we only have one side of the story.

The Hollingsworth guy was charged (and pleaded guilty) in federal court, FWIW. I don't think that's mentioned in the article.

EDIT: I'd expect no less from the possum police.

@ssb

---

Quoting my own post...

I found more recent Tennessee case law saying that "no trespassing" signs plus a fence could invoke 4th Amendment protections, but not just a "no trespassing" sign by itself. From the article, it sounds like the property is gated and posted.