Top Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Implications of the Hollingsworth court decision.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Implications of the Hollingsworth court decision.

    What are y’all’s thoughts on the Hollingsworth ruling as it relates to law enforcement and private property rights?

    I’m not interested in your opinion of Hunter Hollingsworth as I consider him irrelevant to the proposed discussion. However, using cases such as his could lead to interesting discussion.

    Anyhow, fire at will and I’ll try to post my thoughts soon.

  • #2
    What do you know about cattle mutilation?

    Comment


    • #3
      Q. What is the difference between ignorance and apathy?
      A. I don't know and I don't care.

      Comment


      • #4
        Hey red angus! Good to see your name!
        I had to do some searching to find out what the hoopla was about.

        Here's a link:
        https://www.fieldandstream.com/conse...trail-cameras/

        I had heard of the case but didn't know the particulars.

        Sounds as if:
        1) if Hollingsworth had been minding his "p's & q's", the TWRA wouldn't have had a reason to "harass" him.
        2) if TWRA had "probable cause", why not get a search warrant? Would have stopped a lot of the nonsense.

        Glad Hollingsworth prevailed. I've about had it with "gummint overreach"!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by FirstBubba View Post
          Hey red angus! Good to see your name!
          I had to do some searching to find out what the hoopla was about.

          Here's a link:
          https://www.fieldandstream.com/conse...trail-cameras/

          I had heard of the case but didn't know the particulars.

          Sounds as if:
          1) if Hollingsworth had been minding his "p's & q's", the TWRA wouldn't have had a reason to "harass" him.
          2) if TWRA had "probable cause", why not get a search warrant? Would have stopped a lot of the nonsense.

          Glad Hollingsworth prevailed. I've about had it with "gummint overreach"!
          I agree with both of your points. Regardless of whether or not a person is doing something wrong, law enforcement should need a search warrant to enter said persons property.

          Comment


          • #6
            Seems to be some ignorant assumptions in rationalizing trail cams just because it's not a home or vehicle, and because they deal with outdoors-related crimes. So what? In the woods on my land, I've done just about everything I ever do in my home and feel I have the right to expect the same level of privacy. I could be Tony Soprano and unless a judge has approved it, no LEO has the right to a picture of me doing something I only do with a reasonable expectation of privacy.

            And I think a sticking point of the whole thing is Brantley's point about the Open Fields law being made long before today's technology. And what's more, here's something I just thought of: It's not like it was a bug hidden inside a phone or some other form of hidden technology; it was a trail cam out in the woods. Trail cams get stolen. Right there's a whole other instance and type of invasion of privacy! The officers created a situation in which evidence against the suspect -- or the suspect doing whatever -- could have wound up in the wrong hands, some Joe Schmo with no right whatsoever to that material. I suppose that might sound like a far-fetched scenario, but most of our protective rights are based on that very kind of thing, the worst-case scenarios.
            Last edited by MattM37; 08-18-2022, 03:20 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by MattM37 View Post
              Seems to be some ignorant assumptions in rationalizing trail cams just because it's not a home or vehicle, and because they deal with outdoors-related crimes. So what? In the woods on my land, I've done just about everything I ever do in my home and feel I have the right to expect the same level of privacy. I could be Tony Soprano and unless a judge has approved it, no LEO has the right to a picture of me doing something I only do with a reasonable expectation of privacy.

              And I think a sticking point of the whole thing is Brantley's point about the Open Fields law being made long before today's technology. And what's more, here's something I just thought of: It's not like it was a bug hidden inside a phone or some other form of hidden technology; it was a trail cam out in the woods. Trail cams get stolen. Right there's a whole other instance and type of invasion of privacy! The officers created a situation in which evidence against the suspect -- or the suspect doing whatever -- could have wound up in the wrong hands, some Joe Schmo with no right whatsoever to that material. I suppose that might sound like a far-fetched scenario, but most of our protective rights are based on that very kind of thing, the worst-case scenarios.
              If the trail cam transmitted signals to some type of reciever, it "may" have also contained a tracking device.
              ....or maybe like a cell phone, you can trace it's route back to it's current location.
              Mebbe?

              On private property, the thief(?) was most likely the landowner. According to the map in the article, the cam was close enough to a road it could have been stolen by someone other than the landowner.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by FirstBubba View Post

                If the trail cam transmitted signals to some type of reciever, it "may" have also contained a tracking device.
                ....or maybe like a cell phone, you can trace it's route back to it's current location.
                Mebbe?

                On private property, the thief(?) was most likely the landowner. According to the map in the article, the cam was close enough to a road it could have been stolen by someone other than the landowner.
                Yep, just the fact that it's out there in the wide open, theoretically accessible to anyone. Doesn't matter if a trespasser would have to be trespassing to get to it; the game officials are still the ones who placed it somewhere it could physically be accessed. Honestly, even if they had a warrant for the camera, it still seems wrong to have any evidence-gathering device where anyone other than the officers could possibly lay hands on it. It's kind of like wire-tapping someone's conversations, then leaving the tape just laying around. The random thief wouldn't know what they were stealing but it'd still be a big-time violation of your rights.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Not sure. I'm not convinced either way.

                  Out here properties tend to be large, and of all the poaching I've heard of the most common is either someone waiting until elk wander through out of season, or ranchers doing every illegal thing imaginable to provide clients paying tens of thousands with an elk. I'd support fish cops for those reasons.

                  On the other hand as Matt says, you have an expectation of privacy on all of your private land, especially from game cams.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Another aspect to this is anyone who showed up on the camera is now going to be considered guilty by association regardless of the reason they’re on the property.

                    Couple things I’m curious about, the first being what Hollingsworth‘s poaching history is. Not that I think they shouldn’t have needed a permit. The second is why they waited so long to finally bust him. It doesn’t seem like the camera in question could have given them much other than to keep tabs on his travel patterns. I also can’t figure out how he’d be guilty of “stealing” something that was left on his property, especially if it wasn’t marked in an obvious way.


                    Finally, odds are it wasn’t the only camera on the place. It was the only one he found.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by MattM37 View Post

                      Yep, just the fact that it's out there in the wide open, theoretically accessible to anyone. Doesn't matter if a trespasser would have to be trespassing to get to it; the game officials are still the ones who placed it somewhere it could physically be accessed. Honestly, even if they had a warrant for the camera, it still seems wrong to have any evidence-gathering device where anyone other than the officers could possibly lay hands on it. It's kind of like wire-tapping someone's conversations, then leaving the tape just laying around. The random thief wouldn't know what they were stealing but it'd still be a big-time violation of your rights.

                      As I alluded to above, I wonder if the camera was really to gather evidence or more to just play a surveillance roll in keeping tabs on him. If this guy was part of some major poaching ring he was likely not accomplishing much on just 90 acres. If he was pulling some small time crap it seems like maybe a waste of resources.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        BTW; nice to see you again as well RA.

                        Be sure to check in over in the other room also!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It would be common sense to agree that the government would be wrong to openly attempt to harass a private citizen in his home or on his private property........if there was no reason or suspicion to do so. However, when there is a reason, such as past history of violations, meaning due cause, then there does appear to be reasonable means to obtain information for conviction ! Otherwise, how would law enforcement be able to ever arrest a violator if said violator was only violating on his own property, and claiming LEO’s had no right to be there ? As the article reads, it does sound as though government crossed the line, that is until the reader learns of past history of poaching, then credibility of poacher is in my mind forfeited !

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            There is a lot of illegal activity going on within private property , the game wardens know it ! Property next to ours is involved in a full investigation of the lease holder killing big bucks at night. He has cameras linked to his phone to watch who enters the property and even though he brags to all that listen he has stayed one step ahead of the law. A crossbow and night optics are hard to catch and local LEO’s are frustrated but that all being true law enforcement has to play by the rules . For every bad guy there are hundreds of guys doing it right and honest . It’s a question of liberty , a persons right to police their own behavior and have the presumption that we are lawful good citizens . Most of us are and we are accorded these rights by the constitution . If there is overwhelming evidence to support search warrants or exigent circumstances then by all means legal get these bums. Law enforcement isn’t always on the upland up either , it’s a sorry point to make but it’s true. I realize there are bad people but we all can not lose rights because a few abuse the law.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              When a young member post a topic ( a good one at that ) it would be nice to add to the discussion instead of posting for the sake of posting . It has been brought to our attention that some of us post for the guest of the forum , think about that when you post ! Just a observation

                              Comment

                              Welcome!

                              Collapse

                              Welcome to Field and Streams's Answers section. Here you will find hunting, fishing, and survival tips from the editors of Field and Stream, as well as recommendations from readers like yourself.

                              If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ for information on posting and navigating the forums.

                              And don't forget to check out the latest reviews on guns and outdoor gear on fieldandstream.com.

                              Right Rail 1

                              Collapse

                              Top Active Users

                              Collapse

                              There are no top active users.

                              Right Rail 2

                              Collapse

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              • Reply to BIG deer! (?)
                                by FirstBubba
                                I suppose a 400 pound doe would be extra ordinary, but there WAS the legendary "Hinckley Buck".

                                Impossible? Well, there are the...
                                Today, 07:41 AM
                              • BIG deer! (?)
                                by FirstBubba
                                We came down to south Texas to spend a few days with the youngest.
                                We helped assemble a chicken house/run.
                                This morning, we all walked out...
                                Yesterday, 09:43 AM
                              • Reply to BIG deer! (?)
                                by bowhunter75richard
                                I would have a hard time with the validity of such a story. In all my years of elk hunting, that was about the weight of a cow elk. But then, when I read...
                                Today, 06:51 AM
                              • Reply to BIG deer! (?)
                                by jhjimbo
                                When I moved to Ohio in early '70's, a newspaper had an article of a 400lb doe hit by a vehicle outside Columbus....
                                Today, 06:22 AM
                              • Reply to TGIF: Numbers
                                by FirstBubba
                                Diamond Rio - "Meet in the Middle"

                                https://youtu.be/qWKpCmPdGmM

                                "It was 700 fence posts
                                From your place...
                                Yesterday, 11:12 PM

                              Right Rail 3

                              Collapse

                              Footer Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X