Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I've been attending the free consort events at SXSW since 2009, but sadly I don't think I'll be able to go this year because of work.

Some of the bands I've seen: M. Ward, Explosions in the Sky, Cold War Kids, Bowling for Soup, The Strokes, Blue October, Shiny Toy Guns, The Cult, Dawes, Deer Tick, The Flaming Lips, and several other bands I've forgotten.

I completely understand how you feel. It does get irritating being constantly referred to as an ignorant redneck after a while, but reacting negatively to said jokes can actually make the situation worse. Not all the time mind you, but in some cases the people making these kind of jokes loves to receive a negative reaction from the people they're making fun of. I feel the best response to these kind of jokes is for everyone to not react to it positively or negatively. Then the people who keep making these "Texas jokes" will have to come up with something different if they want some kind of response, and will probably drop Texas out of the equation all together.

Sadly, it's easier said then done.

At 2/26/14 02:26 PM, TNT wrote:

At 2/26/14 01:26 PM, Feoric wrote:

For a reasonable expectation of privacy to exist, there has to be some sort of attempt to prevent people from freely observing the thing in question, namely a building or enclosed structure of sorts.

Does a fence that clearly says "No Trespassing" not count as an enclosed structure of sorts?

I decided to re-read some of my posts, and I feel stupid for saying that. Of course a fence is not an "enclosed structure".

DERP

Anyway, let me try to respond this differently...

I would argue that a fence that surrounds the entire property is an attempt to prevent people from freely entering the property, but that doesn't necessarily address the observing part directly. However, it can be applied in certain scenarios. If the illegal substance in question is exactly like what happened in Oliver vs. United States, where it's a few miles away from the fence and can't be seen from there, the fence prevents people from observing the open field from that distance.

Thinking about this further, a wall would be more ideal for privacy because unlike a fence where you can see through it, a wall completely blocks what can be seen inside the property without going through a gate or going over it. Granted it's probably much more expensive, but the expectation of privacy will be greatly superior.

At 2/28/14 12:58 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/28/14 12:29 AM, TNT wrote:

Metal Detectors are not going to stop psychos with guns from killing people.

Metal detectors are usually accompanied by some sort of security or law enforcement officers that are trained to deal with insane people.

Right, but TheKlown left security and law enforcement officers out of the equation (probably not on purpose though).

At 2/28/14 12:18 AM, TheKlown wrote: Just saying Gun-Free Zone doesn't keep the psychos out unless you have Metal Detectors.

Metal Detectors are not going to stop psychos with guns from killing people. If they're that determined, they'll just run right through it, the machine will start beeping, and they'll begin the horrific assault.

At 2/26/14 05:52 PM, Ketamine4Life wrote: It did have Candlej

"I'm going to need more rope!"

At 2/25/14 11:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

I think the distinction lies in what is "private" property. After thinking about about it, my personal view would lie somewhere in the middle of yours and the ruling. I respect property, to the effect it is actually used. So a portion ofht eproperty not in the legal curtilage that is used with regularity would become part of the private area of the property, but the more or less abandoned back 30 acres of your ranch or other property really have no privacy interest as you never use them. You really have no privacy interest in something you don't use. I would also make the use requirement be somewhat regular (with the floor being somewhere around once a week of three times a month). That way even tilled parts of land far from the center that may get 5-6 visits a year really have no privacy interest either.

Well here's where I personally disagree. It shouldn't matter how often someone uses this or that part of land. If the person owns that land, it's his, and can do what he likes with it (provided it's not illegal of course). I think a decent example to compare this to is hoarders. It's not illegal to own hundreds of items and never use them, and it's not illegal to own some part of the land that's not being used. But here's where I'm getting at: It's illegal for steal an unused item from a hoarder, but for whatever reason, it's perfectly legal under the Open Fields Doctrine for law enforcement officials to enter someone's property without a warrant in order to search for an illegal substance or activity because that part of land is "not being used enough". That just doesn't sound right to me...

6-3 ruling doesn't mean too much. It mean's "yeah it's kinda contested, but not really."

At least it shows that some Justices disagree with it, and it wasn't an unanimous decision.

At 2/26/14 01:26 PM, Feoric wrote:

What, exactly, can be considered the expectation of privacy for an open field?

If there's a fence along their property which acts as a border. If the person doesn't expect any privacy or simply doesn't care, the fence wouldn't be there in the first place.

Keep in mind that the officers in this case did not enter the field themselves, but merely observed them. Is that a violation of privacy?

"Arriving at the farm, they drove past petitioner's house to a locked gate with a "No Trespassing" sign, but with a footpath around one side. The agents then walked around the gate and along the road and found a field of marihuana over a mile from petitioner's house." [466 U.S. Page 170]

I'm assuming this is what you're talking about, but if you read a little further...

"After a pretrial hearing, the District Court suppressed evidence of the discovery of the marihuana field, applying Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, and holding that petitioner had a reasonable expectation that the field would remain private and thatit was not an "open" field that invited casual intrusion." [466 U.S. Page 170]

Unless the District Court used intrusion as means of "observing from the fence line", it seems clear that they did enter Oliver's property; just not through the gate.

For a reasonable expectation of privacy to exist, there has to be some sort of attempt to prevent people from freely observing the thing in question, namely a building or enclosed structure of sorts.

Does a fence that clearly says "No Trespassing" not count as an enclosed structure of sorts?

Going back to the aerial observation example, is there any functional difference between observing a field in an airplane and observing a field on foot? How do you make that legal distinction if you were to go about doing so?

No private citizen can own pieces of the sky and prevent people from flying over their property, but a private citizen can own land and try to prevent people from entering their property by a fence or a wall. As soon as anyone steps onto someone else's property without permission, they'll be arrested for trespassing. Do you feel that law enforcement officials should be exempt from this rule just because of the Open Fields Doctrine?

At 2/24/14 07:44 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

I meant more specifically. Do you think the 4th Amendment protects the property or the privacy? If it protects the privacy, then the rulnig fits, as we really have little (I don't mean none, just significantly less than indoors) interest in privacy for the out of home things we do on our property.

Ultimately, the 4th Amendment protects privacy, but privacy shouldn't necessarily be limited to indoors. I think we're all on the same level regarding what can be search and seized in plain view rather it's on the ground level or in the air. But there's still an expectation of privacy if there's a fence that borders the person's private property. It's basically telling the world that you cannot enter into my private property without my permission or probable cause.

Feoric had provided additional text to Oliver vs. United States, particularly Justice Powell's delivering opinion to the case, which I'm glad he's doing that. It shows in further detail why the US Supreme Court made their decision regarding the case. However, it should be noted that this was a 6-3 decision for the United States (if I'm looking at it correctly), so not all of the Justice members agreed with the ruling.

"In each of these consolidated cases, police officers, ignoring clearly visible "No Trespassing" signs, entered upon private land in search of evidence of a crime. At a spot that could not be seen from any vantage point accessible to the public, the police discovered contraband, which was subsequently used to incriminate the owner of the land. In neither case did the police have a warrant authorizing their activities. The Court holds that police conduct of this sort does not constitute an "unreasonable search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Court reaches that startling conclusion by two independent analytical routes. First, the Court argues that, because the Fourth Amendment, by its terms, renders people secure in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects," it is inapplicable to trespasses upon land not lying within the curtilage of a dwelling. Ante at 466 U. S. 176-177. Second, the Court contends that "an individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of doors in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home." Ante at 466 U. S. 178. Because I cannot agree with either of these propositions, I dissent. [Page 466 U.S. 184-185]"

At 2/24/14 04:56 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 2/24/14 04:09 PM, TNT wrote:

That's not a perfect example at all. Jim Crow laws fail the test of strict scrutiny; fundamental rights are being infringed upon. There's no sound legal argument that the fourth amendment must fundamentally apply to 'open fields'. You're not obligated to agree with every court ruling (nor should you) but there's no legal argument that I can see that would overturn the ruling.

What I was trying to say was is this: Jim Crow was once considered constitutional, but after Brown vs. Board of Education and others, Jim Crow was determined to be unconstitutional. However, you're right. Thinking about it further, the case does not relate to the 4th Amendment. But I still stand that part of the Open Fields Doctrine should be unconstitutional.

Sorry I skimmed. The thing is, the officers didn't need probable cause, because they technically didn't conduct a search. In accordance to the Hester ruling it's irrelevant if marijuana is discovered via aerial photography or walking around a gate with a No Trespassing sign:

That's completely fine. It's unavoidable if someone from the air happens to see something illegal on someone else's property.

"In contrast, open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance. There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops, that occur in open fields. Moreover, as a practical matter, these lands usually are accessible to the public and the police in ways that a home, an office, or commercial structure would not be. It is not generally true that fences or "No Trespassing" signs effectively bar the public from viewing open fields in rural areas. And both petitioner Oliver and respondent Thornton concede that the public and police lawfully may survey lands from the air. For these reasons, the asserted expectation of privacy in open fields is not an expectation that "society recognizes as reasonable."" [Page 466 U. S. 179]

My only question is that doesn't it defeat the whole purpose of a "No Trespassing" sign? It seems a bit of a double standard that a civilian can be charged with trespassing but a law enforcement official can't if they entered via foot or vehicle. Hiding something illegal openly in a one acre property will have little leg to stand on against court, but what if it was in the middle of the big property (let's say at least 100 acres), and can't be seen from the fence line? Unless of course the viewing is done by air, shouldn't there be some protection from law enforcement officials stepping onto property unwarranted?

I think the main issue you have here is the fact that the officers disregarded the No Trespassing sign, but this is entirely consistent within the Fourth Amendment:

"The historical underpinnings of the open fields doctrine also demonstrate that the doctrine is consistent with respect for "reasonable expectations of privacy." As Justice Holmes, writing for the Court, observed in Hester, 265 U.S. at 265 U. S. 59, the common law distinguished "open fields" from the "curtilage," the land immediately surrounding and associated with the home. See 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *225. The distinction implies that only the curtilage, not the neighboring open fields, warrants the Fourth Amendment protections that attach to the home. At common law, the curtilage is the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the "sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life," Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 630 (1886), and therefore has been considered part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes. Thus, courts have extended Fourth Amendment protection to the curtilage; and they have defined the curtilage, as did the common law, by reference to the factors that determine whether an individual reasonably may expect that an area immediately adjacent to the home will remain private. See, e.g., United States v. Van Dyke, 643 F.2d 992, 993-994 (CA4 1981); United States v. Williams, 581 F.2d 451, 453 (CA5 1978); Care v. United States, 231 F.2d 22, 25 (CA10), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 932 (1956). Conversely, the common law implies, as we reaffirm today, that no expectation of privacy legitimately attaches to open fields." [Page 466 U. S. 179]

You're correct, the main issue I have is that the officers completely disregarded the "No Trespassing" sign, and I feel that the Open Fields Doctrine should make alterations regarding what happened.

At 2/24/14 04:32 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 2/24/14 04:09 PM, TNT wrote: Just because the US Supreme Court states that the Fourth Amendment does not protect "open fields" doesn't mean that I have to completely agree with it. It may be constitutional now, but there may be a case in the future where the Supreme Court determines that it's actually unconstitutional. Jim Crow "Separate but Equal" is a perfect example.

But unlike many of the overturned doctrines, this one is very sound

Well, it is pretty sound. It will be interesting when the doctrine does get challenged in a future case (if it ever does).

You're missing one of the major components here that makes these two situations exactly the same. It is not the "ability to see" that makes these two the same (although that is important) it is the expectation of privacy. Anything you do in the open view of the public is not and never can be considered private. As an open field is visible from a public location (the air) the interest of privacy doesn't exist.

What if, hypothetically speaking, the property is covered by trees? It would be difficult for anyone in the air to see anything beyond the brushes. Wouldn't that in itself warrant some expectation of privacy?

The second portion is also important. What is the 4th Amendment supposed to protect? What do you think the 4th Amendment is supposed to accomplish?

In a broad definition: the 4th Amendment of the Constitution is supposed to protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that if the Government needs to search or seize something it requires a warrant (unless there's probable cause to search or seize without one). Of course, the broad definition I've provided does lack the term "property", which is why I want to discuss this. I think the 4th Amendment should extend somewhat to property given the circumstances I've provided earlier. Do you feel that it should too?

At 2/24/14 03:24 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 2/24/14 02:58 PM, TNT wrote: I would like to discuss the Open Fields Doctrine because it directly effects the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

This is a case where the ruling didn't exist in a vacuum. There's a certain line of precedent you need to follow:

"In Hester v. United States, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment did not protect “open fields” and that, therefore, police searches in such areas as pastures, wooded areas, open water, and vacant lots need not comply with the requirements of warrants and probable cause.

Just because the US Supreme Court states that the Fourth Amendment does not protect "open fields" doesn't mean that I have to completely agree with it. It may be constitutional now, but there may be a case in the future where the Supreme Court determines that it's actually unconstitutional. Jim Crow "Separate but Equal" is a perfect example.

The Court’s announcement in Katz v. United States that the Amendment protects “people not places” cast some doubt on the vitality of the open fields principle, but all such doubts were cast away in Oliver v. United States. Invoking Hester’s reliance on the literal wording of the Fourth Amendment (open fields are not “effects”) and distinguishing Katz, the Court ruled that the open fields exception applies to fields that are fenced and posted. “[A]n individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of doors in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home.” Nor may an individual demand privacy for activities conducted within outbuildings and visible by trespassers peering into the buildings from just outside.

This is the part I don't disagree with. As I stated earlier, if anyone can see the illegal activity going on inside their property WITHOUT trespassing their property, then the expectation of privacy is diminished, and law enforcement have probable cause to act.

Even within the curtilage and notwithstanding that the owner has gone to the extreme of erecting a 10– foot high fence in order to screen the area from ground–level view, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy from naked–eye inspection from fixed–wing aircraft flying in navigable airspace. Similarly, naked–eye inspection from helicopters flying even lower contravenes no reasonable expectation of privacy. And aerial photography of commercial facilities secured from ground–level public view is permissible, the Court finding such spaces more analogous to open fields than to the curtilage of a dwelling."[source]

You've missed what I'm trying to say though. Yes, aerial view does change circumstances of what law enforcement can search without a warrant. That didn't happen in United States vs. Oliver though. The Kentucky State Police decided to enter Oliver's property without a warrant on foot to find illicit drugs that they couldn't see from the property line. This is where, in my opinion, the Open Fields Doctrine needs to be altered so that all law enforcement officials must have a warrant to enter the property if no probable cause can be established.

I would like to discuss the Open Fields Doctrine because it directly effects the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"The open field doctrine is a term used in criminal law to stand for the concept that anything plainly visible to the eye, even if it’s on private property, is subject to a search since it’s not hidden. An open field is not an area protected under the Fourth Amendment, and there is no expectation of a right of privacy for an open field."

http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/open-field-doctrine/

If something illegal is visible to the naked eye on someone's property, then law enforcement does have probable cause to seize the item. However, what this doctrine also allows is quite puzzling to me, and I feel that it should be unconstitutional.

"This can include garages, unless they are extremely far in distance from the home and rarely used." This means that even if they own said garage or shack that completely covers their belongings from anyone's view, if law enforcement determines that it's too far from their home and its rarely used that they can search it without a warrant.

http://voices.yahoo.com/understanding-open-fields-doctrine-abandonment-2358063.html?cat=17

I wish I had a better source to back up this quote, but my class did discuss this with my Criminal Procedure Professor at my college. I'll try my best to find the proper source for the above quote.

In United States vs. Oliver, the Supreme Court held that the Kentucky State Police did not need a warrant to search the property for marijuana. "After turning off a public highway onto Oliver's private gravel road, the officers parked their car at a locked gate which blocked the road a "short distance" past his home. They continued on foot for over a mile to a secluded field planted with marijuana. Oliver was indicted for "manufacturing" marijuana in violation of the federal statute."

http://lawlibrary.unm.edu/nmlr/16/1/10_note_criminal.pdf

As I said before, if anyone can see something visibly illegal, then law enforcement has probable cause to seize the item. What makes this case wrong in my opinion however, is that they entered the property without a warrant when the gate was locked, traveled inside his property for over a mile, and found the marijuana. They could not have seen it from where they parked, and the locked gate (and I assume the fence connecting the gate) provided the owner's some expectation of privacy from what they normal eye cannot see.

The Open Fields Doctrine should be modified to where law enforcement still needs a warrant to enter someone's property if the illegal substance or item can't be seen from the property line.

At 2/19/14 12:32 AM, TheKlown wrote: I would like to think that the Sun, Moon, Earth and the entire Universe didn't just magically create itself.

Well in actuality the entire Universe didn't magically create itself. Rather the Big Bang caused it or God created it, there's a scientific method on how it happened.

All I could think about is how I could form an army of rabbits at my disposal doing that. All it needs is lasers on their backs and I'll be unstoppable!

At 2/1/14 11:46 AM, Darthdenim wrote: http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/02/01/disney-picks-up-chip-n-dale-movie-pitch?abthid=52ec4b9d60a33fb47b000078

Oh wow. That show was great.

Disney has been kind of on a roll lately with good films, so maybe this could turn out to be great.

Wish it wasn't live action though.

It's live action? Yeah it's doom to fail.

I guarantee you that the next generations will be worse, and worse, AND WORSE.

That's fucking life.

At 1/29/14 05:30 PM, JoshuaHughes wrote: Yes, I watched it. Question: do women really earn 77 cents to every man's dollar? Obama mentioned this in his speech, and I've heard this claim before, but I'm not sure if I really believe it. The way it was worded made it sound like if a man and a woman work at the same job under the same conditions, the woman would earn 77% of what the man would make. I thought this was more like an overall annual average thing? I'm very confused.

It has been referenced several times when I was in college, so I'm only assuming it's at least somewhat true. However, there's a counter-argument that woman earn less not because they don't get equal pay, but they work less because they need the time to take care of their family.

Keep in mind that I don't have any source to back this counter-argument, but this is from what I've heard...

I tend to use two local news sites to check on what's going in my area, and on occasion I'll pull up CNN.

At 1/22/14 01:11 AM, Gimmick wrote:

At 1/21/14 11:51 PM, Schizo-Sephy wrote: There's nothing wrong with Autism.

I don't think autistic people would understand a joke and they would probably go to extremes to prove a joke wrong

I dunno... I would like to see the facebook post of that comic. Maybe someone who posted the comic on facebook actually believed that it happened this way, and that's what making people freak out over it. I think people with autism can understand jokes, but what they don't usually understand is sarcasm (which makes many of them gullible).

At 1/21/14 11:35 PM, FiRsT-Av3nGeR wrote: Hellow. :3

Hi?

Well the picture would have made more sense if they were Polar Bears instead...

At 1/21/14 10:47 PM, poxpower wrote: I like how, when the car crashes, he has a look of genuine concern as if two people just died.
So anti-mythbustersian.

Also ramming a car at 120mph into a wall is not the same as two cars colliding while each is going at 120mph as he says at the start... so..yah

True, but it's worth noting the significance of two cars going at 60 mph colliding into each other. What makes it more frightening is that most people (at least where I live) drives at least ten miles over the speed limit on a major highway (the speed limit at it's highest is 75). So imagine two 85 mph cars colliding into each other...

Instant death.

Then next time: just tell the people who support smoking bans that secondhand smoke is a cliche' argument, explain why, and leave it at that. If they provide a counter-argument, then you can either continue explaining your point of view, acknowledge that they may be right, or drop the subject and move on. There is absolutely no reason to call someone names over any sort of argument, because at the end of the day, not only it may be hurtful, but it goes nowhere.

I lost all respect for Rick Santorum when he called Obama a "snob". I'm not a fan of either of the candidates because of their viewpoints, but I have far more respect for President Obama than I do for Rick Santorum for mostly that reason alone. Unless you don't care about what people think of you, you should seriously change your tone when you disagree with someone.

At 1/16/14 10:44 PM, Saen wrote:

At 1/16/14 10:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Oh, FYI, if you want to be taken seriously as an adult, stop with the lobbing of insults. It seriously detracts from your points.

Like I said, you are acting like a stuck up selfish little bitch and you need to know that.

No one will take you seriously if you continue to insult others like that. I actually don't believe that Universities should ban smoking on campus either, but Camarohusky shows much more credibility in his argument than yours do. Every time you post something that I agree with, you shoot yourself in the foot by mocking Camarohusky for having a different opinion. Why do you feel that it's necessary to do this?

You can't fix stupid.

I was using Craigslist to find my new job, and I didn't find that many illiterate users. So maybe your area has grammar issues?

Texas will probably be one of the last states that legalizes marijuana, unless the Supreme Court rules that smoking weed is a constitutional right and no state can outlaw it.

Hypothetically speaking anyway...

This is a very clever thread.

Well done.

It made me grin reading the whole thing.

It's his decision. I've remembered watching a few of his videos at one point, and didn't really care for them. But, I guess it's sort of interesting to know that a famous YT person is retiring.

At 1/7/14 11:16 PM, rendibsivad wrote: you know that feel when someone disagrees with you and pisses you off, you respect them the best way THEY see it? Which goes against all ur logic. And then you feel guilty because in your head you smacked that person dozens of times because start to think that bullshit is true??

So what I'm getting at is...

"You know that feeling when someone disagrees with your opinion that it pisses you off? So in order to make you less mad, do you decide to respect their opinion, even though it goes against your logic? Do you feel guilty when you imagine smacking that person dozens of times, because you start to think his bullshit is true?"

1. Of course I do, and you just answered your own question. It pisses me off.
2. Well I have to if I want to be less mad. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion (even if it's completely wrong).
3. If something that's bullshit is apparently true, why would I imagine smacking that person for proving me wrong? I think the worst thing that would happen for me is being upset that I've been lied to, or feel completely stupid for not realizing what it really is.