Jump to content

FBI dumpster diving

Jakro

By Jakro
in Channel Zero

 Share

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
..romero..

..romero..

Posted
Posted
once your trash is on sidewalk or street its public property, no?

and if they have a warrant to search your property i would assume the trashcan falls into that warrant, no?

 

also, dont papparazi do this kinda shit? i would assume the feds would in certain cases as well.

 

it depends on the situation, but most courts uphold these searches. if you put it on the curb you can expect it to be open to search in most cases, or on the driveway or other pathways to your home etc. because the courts have ruled you have no reasonable expectation of privacy there, now if you were to keep your trash in a place like your back yard, especially one that is fenced in, you have more of an expectation of privacy there, and therefore any searches of your property there that are unwarranted are considered unconstitutional and any evidence they might find is usually inadmissable.

 

 

Privacy expectations in backyards (including fenced side yards) are almost always higher—usually much higher—than those in the front. There may be several reasons for this, such as, (1) most backyards are not readily visible to the public, (2) normal access routes seldom go through backyards, (3) backyards are usually surrounded by fences, and (4) the family activities that commonly occur in backyards more closely resemble the so-called “intimate” household activities that are afforded greater protection under the Fourth Amendment. As the court observed in People v. Winters,19 “A person who surrounds his backyard with a fence and limits entry with a gate, locked or unlocked, has shown a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

 

BUT, there are some acceptions to the rule.

 

if access to the house is normally made from both the front and back, an officer’s entry into the backyard would not constitute a search. As the court observed in U.S. v. Garcia,20 “If the front and back of a residence are readily accessible from a public place, like the driveway and parking area here, the Fourth Amendment is not implicated when officers go to the back door reasonably believing it is used as a principal entrance to the dwelling.”

 

 

 

more here.

 

http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/police_trespassing.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lord_casek

lord_casek

Posted
Posted
Don't disturb my friend, he's dead tired.

 

 

?

 

DAO, err, 12packprophet, the FBI has generally had more rules than not regarding privacy.

They aren't allowed to do a bunch of things. Rather, weren't. With this new magical law making manual I guess they can pretty much do whatever the fuck they want now.

 

 

Manuals: How do they work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
12packprophet

12packprophet

Posted
Posted
it depends on the situation, but most courts uphold these searches. if you put it on the curb you can expect it to be open to search in most cases, or on the driveway or other pathways to your home etc. because the courts have ruled you have no reasonable expectation of privacy there, now if you were to keep your trash in a place like your back yard, especially one that is fenced in, you have more of an expectation of privacy there, and therefore any searches of your property there that are unwarranted are considered unconstitutional and any evidence they might find is usually inadmissable.

 

Quote: Privacy expectations in backyards (including fenced side yards) are almost always higher—usually much higher—than those in the front. There may be several reasons for this, such as, (1) most backyards are not readily visible to the public, (2) normal access routes seldom go through backyards, (3) backyards are usually surrounded by fences, and (4) the family activities that commonly occur in backyards more closely resemble the so-called “intimate” household activities that are afforded greater protection under the Fourth Amendment. As the court observed in People v. Winters,19 “A person who surrounds his backyard with a fence and limits entry with a gate, locked or unlocked, has shown a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

 

 

BUT, there are some acceptions to the rule.

 

Quote: if access to the house is normally made from both the front and back, an officer’s entry into the backyard would not constitute a search. As the court observed in U.S. v. Garcia,20 “If the front and back of a residence are readily accessible from a public place, like the driveway and parking area here, the Fourth Amendment is not implicated when officers go to the back door reasonably believing it is used as a principal entrance to the dwelling.”

 

 

 

more here.

 

http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/police_trespassing.pdf

 

 

 

 

Quoted to shut Casek up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lord_casek

lord_casek

Posted
Posted
Quoted to shut Casek up.

 

 

Ok, you dumb fuck

 

 

Under current rules, agents must open such an inquiry before they can search for information about a person in a commercial or law enforcement database. Under the new rules, agents will be allowed to search such databases without making a record about their decision.

Mr. German said the change would make it harder to detect and deter inappropriate use of databases for personal purposes. But Ms. Caproni said it was too cumbersome to require agents to open formal inquiries before running quick checks. She also said agents could not put information uncovered from such searches into F.B.I. files unless they later opened an assessment.

The new rules will also relax a restriction on administering lie-detector tests and searching people’s trash. Under current rules, agents cannot use such techniques until they open a “preliminary investigation,” which — unlike an assessment — requires a factual basis for suspecting someone of wrongdoing. But soon agents will be allowed to use those techniques for one kind of assessment, too: when they are evaluating a target as a potential informant.

 

 

Agents have asked for that power in part because they want the ability to use information found in a subject’s trash to put pressure on that person to assist the government in the investigation of others. But Ms. Caproni said information gathered that way could also be useful for other reasons, like determining whether the subject might pose a threat to agents.

The new manual will also remove a limitation on the use of surveillance squads, which are trained to surreptitiously follow targets. Under current rules, the squads can be used only once during an assessment, but the new rules will allow agents to use them repeatedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...