If I find a game camera on my property, I'm rubbing my nutsack across the lens.
You've been warned, feds.
If I find a game camera on my property, I'm rubbing my nutsack across the lens.
You've been warned, feds.
That takes a lot of balls!Originally Posted by Casual Friday
There's nothing civil about this war.
I'd issue you a stack of PF bucks* if you hung a set of those "truck nuts" in front of the lens.
*PF bucks are largely (and by largely I mean completely) imaginary, have no cash value, but are redeemable for "cool guy points" at a 7:1 ratio.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Apologies but I missed what he was actually charged with.
I have an idea for a fitting tribute...
*NSFW LINK*
https://i.etsystatic.com/11332379/r/...00802_fs06.jpg
Last edited by BehindBlueI's; 12-21-2020 at 03:23 PM.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Was the camera in question marked as state property ?
Otherwise, if I found a game camera on my rural property the logical assumption is trespassing poachers.
If it’s a remote access cam I’d pull it and destroy it - and likely put up a game came of my own to ID who comes looking for it.
If a data card model - set up the Camera and see who comes to check it.
Fish and game violations.
An esoteric argument? But at what point would the 4th A apply (Federal not Tennessee's laws/Constitution)?
What if a land owner built a 10 foot concrete wall for example, or more realistically a 10 ft chainlink fence (saw this in real life around about two acres next to a park).
Alternatively, is the land owner liable if, in the commission of putting up these devices, the agent is attacked by animals on the property?
I think it would take big balls to be the unlucky person who has to place the camera on another persons private property.
F that!
Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 , 183 n.13 (1984) seems to have addressed the "no trespassing" sign issue at the Federal level ("Certainly, the framers did not intend that the Fourth Amendment should shelter criminal activity wherever persons with criminal intent choose to erect barriers and post 'No Trespassing' signs."). Oliver involved signs and a fence. @TC215, I see our Supreme Court saying "no trespassing" signs don't bar LE from conducting a knock and talk (Christensen). There are a handful of CCA cases which deal with it per my quick read, most recently Blackwell in 2010. It would appear Tennessee is following the Oliver Court when it comes to signs and fences.
We do have some more restrictive language, however, in that even though you can't make an expectation of privacy where none would otherwise exist by using a no trespassing sign, Jenette seems to require some observation of contraband prior to entry into fenced in fields. But the no trespassing sign itself won't get you a privacy interest.
As to the civil suit and its merits, I'll stick with my own kiddie pool and defer to others.
Last edited by ssb; 12-21-2020 at 03:24 PM.
Reply With Quote