bucdoego
Well-known member
Big news. Landowners win case regarding government game cameras
From the article:
The issue was the state wildlife officials strapped a game camera to a tree on Hollingsworth’s and Rainwater’s respective properties as a way to monitor what they did on their own property.
This fell under something called the Open Fields Doctrine. Basically, the Supreme Court has said the police don’t need a warrant to search an open field you own, only your home and the property immediately surrounding the house.
It’s kind of like how the police don’t need a warrant to use evidence in plain view, only taken a step or two too far.
Officials in Tennessee took this idea and used it to justify placing trail cameras up on private property.
However, Tennessee takes a more narrow view of things like that, which is why this particular case went the way that it did.
What’s interesting, though, is that the Institute for Justice’s Fourth Amendment project–which was part of who represented the two landowners–has other cases, including a hunting club in Pennsylvania and a taxidermist in Ohio.
It’s interesting that all of these revolve around the hunting industry–and industry well associated with firearms.
Now, it’s entirely possible that it’s just a coincidence since it’s multiple states including some that are very pro-gun, but it’s still just enough to make me question it. Or maybe my tinfoil hat is just a bit too tight. After all, there are other Fourth Amendment cases IJ is pursuing that have nothing to do with hunting or the outdoors.
bearingarms.com
From the article:
The issue was the state wildlife officials strapped a game camera to a tree on Hollingsworth’s and Rainwater’s respective properties as a way to monitor what they did on their own property.
This fell under something called the Open Fields Doctrine. Basically, the Supreme Court has said the police don’t need a warrant to search an open field you own, only your home and the property immediately surrounding the house.
It’s kind of like how the police don’t need a warrant to use evidence in plain view, only taken a step or two too far.
Officials in Tennessee took this idea and used it to justify placing trail cameras up on private property.
However, Tennessee takes a more narrow view of things like that, which is why this particular case went the way that it did.
What’s interesting, though, is that the Institute for Justice’s Fourth Amendment project–which was part of who represented the two landowners–has other cases, including a hunting club in Pennsylvania and a taxidermist in Ohio.
It’s interesting that all of these revolve around the hunting industry–and industry well associated with firearms.
Now, it’s entirely possible that it’s just a coincidence since it’s multiple states including some that are very pro-gun, but it’s still just enough to make me question it. Or maybe my tinfoil hat is just a bit too tight. After all, there are other Fourth Amendment cases IJ is pursuing that have nothing to do with hunting or the outdoors.
Landowners win case regarding government game cameras
bearingarms.com
