jase7725 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

What a dumb redneck.

Alialama1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

i would go around collecting dog and cat shit. i would make a cat and dog shit fortress!! ...that i'll teach em.haha! picture that biiiiitch!

DavidForthoffer (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

You didn't get a response from me because all your new posts either had no now information or arguments, or were irrelevant. Again: Curtilage issues can only be answered by considering Dunn's four factors as they relate to the intimacies of a domicile. The lack of a specific formula does NOT mean all areas somewhat near a home are protected by the Fourth Amendment. You need to apply the four factors, with reason.

darinmad (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

THIS IS WHAT FASCISM LOOKS LIKE

0Latitude (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

"No Trespassing" sign and distance from nearest road creating an expectation of privacy. Thus entry onto the curtilage of owner's property without his consent violated his or her rights under the Fourth Amendment.

0Latitude (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

While open fields are not protected by the Fourth Amendment, the curtilage, or outdoor area immediately surrounding the home, may be protected. Courts have treated this area as an extension of the house and as such subject to all the privacy protections afforded a persons home (unlike a person's open fields) under the Fourth Amendment.

0Latitude (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the ``right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures....'' (5) As earlier noted, this protection extends to the area surrounding a residence that is known as curtilage. As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in United States v. Dunn (3) Determining the boundaries of curtilage, however, is considerably more problematic than fixing the limits of a house.

DavidForthoffer (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I am sorry if you were offended. In United States v. Van Dyke, 643 F.2d 992, the critical area was within "the exclusionary fence". THIS case had no such fence. "No Trespass" signs are irrelevant. They apply to both curtilage and open fields, and hence do not distinguish the two. The areas she entered were not separated from open field by a fence, nor were blocked from view, nor were used differently than nearby open fields. He flunks 3 of the 4 factors.

0Latitude (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Davidforthoffer 1. It was in close proximity to the domicile. (land owners backyard) 2. Obviously you believe the land owners backyard does not entitle him to sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. Maybe you should read United States v. Van Dyke. 3. He posted no trespass signs, block drive way access with motor vehicle, and area was not in plain view.(view blocked by domicile) Lastly, there is no need to get rude, we are after all having an "intelligent" discussion.

DavidForthoffer (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I am glad you read United States v. Dunn. Are you going to apply the four factors given there to this situation? Or are you just going to say that earth-moving is obviously an intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life?