300RUM Report post Posted March 12, 2017 Regarding above discussion of expectations of 4th amendment protections to game cameras. Keep in mind that G & F field personnel are sworn state law enforcement officers. Patrol personnel for BLM & USFS are federal law enforcement. Abandoned property may be a vehicle, personal property such as a purse or wallet, or a hotel room. By abandoning property, a person gives up his or her rights in the property, leaving law enforcement free to search it without obtaining a warrant. In order to determine if property has been abandon, the Court uses the “reasonable person” and “totality of circumstances” tests. What this means, is that if a reasonable person would conclude, based on the totality of the circumstances, or all of the evidence, that the property had been abandoned, than it is considered to be abandoned and the police may search it without obtaining a warrant. In State v. Stafford, the court agreed it was reasonable for an officer to conclude that property left by defendant "out in the open, in a public area" had been abandoned, regardless of whether the defendant subjectively intended to return and retrieve the property later. When you hang that camera on public land and walk away you surrender any protection under the 4th amendment. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flatlander Report post Posted March 12, 2017 Regarding above discussion of expectations of 4th amendment protections to game cameras. Keep in mind that G & F field personnel are sworn state law enforcement officers. Patrol personnel for BLM & USFS are federal law enforcement. Abandoned property may be a vehicle, personal property such as a purse or wallet, or a hotel room. By abandoning property, a person gives up his or her rights in the property, leaving law enforcement free to search it without obtaining a warrant. In order to determine if property has been abandon, the Court uses the reasonable person and totality of circumstances tests. What this means, is that if a reasonable person would conclude, based on the totality of the circumstances, or all of the evidence, that the property had been abandoned, than it is considered to be abandoned and the police may search it without obtaining a warrant. In State v. Stafford, the court agreed it was reasonable for an officer to conclude that property left by defendant "out in the open, in a public area" had been abandoned, regardless of whether the defendant subjectively intended to return and retrieve the property later. When you hang that camera on public land and walk away you surrender any protection under the 4th amendment. Holy crap, someone actually researched their point and found the correct data to support it instead of just talking out their butt and trying to sound smart. Dang, never thought I'd see the day. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
trphyhntr Report post Posted March 12, 2017 Cliffs? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red Sparky Report post Posted March 13, 2017 Regarding above discussion of expectations of 4th amendment protections to game cameras. Keep in mind that G & F field personnel are sworn state law enforcement officers. Patrol personnel for BLM & USFS are federal law enforcement. Abandoned property may be a vehicle, personal property such as a purse or wallet, or a hotel room. By abandoning property, a person gives up his or her rights in the property, leaving law enforcement free to search it without obtaining a warrant. In order to determine if property has been abandon, the Court uses the “reasonable person” and “totality of circumstances” tests. What this means, is that if a reasonable person would conclude, based on the totality of the circumstances, or all of the evidence, that the property had been abandoned, than it is considered to be abandoned and the police may search it without obtaining a warrant. In State v. Stafford, the court agreed it was reasonable for an officer to conclude that property left by defendant "out in the open, in a public area" had been abandoned, regardless of whether the defendant subjectively intended to return and retrieve the property later. When you hang that camera on public land and walk away you surrender any protection under the 4th amendment. That is why I use to have a waterproof log on mine that tells people it is not abandoned and who it belonged to visible from the outside. I would also point out the locked chain meant I was coming back for it. So a "reasonable person" would know it was not abandoned. Keeping my fourth amendment right in place. I don't have to worry about it now as I can leave my camera out and you will not know it is there unless you have something to pick up radio frequencies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
300RUM Report post Posted March 16, 2017 Regarding above discussion of expectations of 4th amendment protections to game cameras. Keep in mind that G & F field personnel are sworn state law enforcement officers. Patrol personnel for BLM & USFS are federal law enforcement. Abandoned property may be a vehicle, personal property such as a purse or wallet, or a hotel room. By abandoning property, a person gives up his or her rights in the property, leaving law enforcement free to search it without obtaining a warrant. In order to determine if property has been abandon, the Court uses the “reasonable person” and “totality of circumstances” tests. What this means, is that if a reasonable person would conclude, based on the totality of the circumstances, or all of the evidence, that the property had been abandoned, than it is considered to be abandoned and the police may search it without obtaining a warrant. In State v. Stafford, the court agreed it was reasonable for an officer to conclude that property left by defendant "out in the open, in a public area" had been abandoned, regardless of whether the defendant subjectively intended to return and retrieve the property later. When you hang that camera on public land and walk away you surrender any protection under the 4th amendment. That is why I use to have a waterproof log on mine that tells people it is not abandoned and who it belonged to visible from the outside. I would also point out the locked chain meant I was coming back for it. So a "reasonable person" would know it was not abandoned. Keeping my fourth amendment right in place. I don't have to worry about it now as I can leave my camera out and you will not know it is there unless you have something to pick up radio frequencies. The log clearly indicates returns and an intent to return, however intent to return does not prevent an item from being declared legally abandoned. "The court agreed it was reasonable for an officer to conclude that property left by defendant "out in the open, in a public area" had been abandoned, regardless of whether the defendant subjectively intended to return and retrieve the property later." The chain. Imagine the vehicle scenario again. This time pull the vehicle off the highway and off the shoulder and onto the dirt so there is no safety issue. Lock the vehicle to a tree and leave it. I can't imagine the chain from legally stopping police from having the vehicle towed and impounded. Once they have legally towed and impounded a vehicle they have a right to search it. 'Reasonable person" I do have to concede there is leeway in that one. A judge considering a motion to bar evidence or a grand jury reviewing a case whether to recommend prosecution can review the officers actions with great scrutiny to see if his actions were reasonable. Lots of evidence has been ruled inadmissible over very minor errors. I'm ready to turn this one over to the jury. As I have been acting more like prosecution and you defense the last argument should be yours. It could have been interesting to actually argue this in front of a judge. I expect all we would rate would be Judge Judy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AZBULLHUNTER Report post Posted March 17, 2017 How many of you are lawyers? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AZBULLHUNTER Report post Posted March 17, 2017 By the way state law enforcement officers can arrest individuals on federal charges. Old argument on here about that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertBull Report post Posted March 17, 2017 By the way state law enforcement officers can arrest individuals on federal charges. Old argument on here about that. Even immigration law? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AzDiamondHeat Report post Posted March 17, 2017 I did sleep at a holiday inn last night, so...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AZBULLHUNTER Report post Posted March 17, 2017 If a Navajo County Deputy is at Big Lake and someone starts shooting a campground up but drops his weapon and starts to drive away can the deputy arrest him(detain him)? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AZBULLHUNTER Report post Posted March 17, 2017 The argument I hear on here is that a federal officer cannot arrest a person on a state crime wrong Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AZBULLHUNTER Report post Posted March 17, 2017 Immigration law is very different since the mere fact that a person is found in the U.S. without immigration papers is not enough for a conviction. Supreme Court has ruled(sorry Joe) that immigration law is a federal matter. That is why 99% of our famous immigration law was ruled unconstitutional and Joe disregarded the federal court order and has a trial forthcoming. Maricopa County taxpayers have paid out how many million of dollars in lawsuits? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
300RUM Report post Posted March 17, 2017 If a Navajo County Deputy is at Big Lake and someone starts shooting a campground up but drops his weapon and starts to drive away can the deputy arrest him(detain him)? Yes, so could an officer from any county or city in the state. While they may be employed by a county or a city they are certified by the state and their authority to enforce the law is recognized statewide with some exceptions for indian reservations or military bases. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
300RUM Report post Posted March 17, 2017 How many of you are lawyers? I am just impersonating one, in reality I am just a dumb truck driver. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elkaholic Report post Posted March 25, 2017 looks like point water source -- examples BUT NOT LIMITED TO SEEP OR SPRING -- HERES WHERE IT CAN MEAN ANY TYPE OF WATER - ANYWHERE WHICH COULD INCLUDED PUDDLES FOR WALLOWS Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
