It's not your land- it's an open Field

hermosabeach

Invite new Gun owners to the range in 2021
Minuteman

snip

Seated at his kitchen table, finishing off the remains of a Saturday breakfast, Hunter Hollingsworth’s world was rocked by footsteps on his front porch and pounding at the door, punctuated by an aggressive order: “Open up or we’ll kick the door down.”

Surrounded on all sides of his house, and the driveway blocked, Hollingsworth was the target of approximately 10 federal and state wildlife officials packing pistols, shotguns and rifles. And what was Hollingsworth’s crime? Drugs, armed robbery, assault, money laundering? Not quite.

Months prior, in 2018, the Tennessee landowner removed a game camera secretly strapped to a tree on his private land by wildlife officials in order to monitor his activity without apparent sanction or probable cause. Repeat: Hollingsworth’s residence was searched by U.S. government and state officials, dressed to the nines in assault gear, seeking to regain possession of a trail camera—the precise camera they had surreptitiously placed on his private acreage after sneaking onto his property at night, loading the camera with active SD and SIM cards, and zip-tying the device roughly 10’ high up a tree—all without a warrant.
 
Did you guys read the full story or just what was copied pasted on the OP?

If you read the full story, it states there is an "open fields" law which grants LEOs to move into you're acreage without probable cause or a warrant. The 4th amendment only protects you and your immediate space.

This all sounds like fucking BS!
 
Usually state guys have to have Feds with them to use "open fields doctrine" The nexus must have been The Lacey Act or other Federal wildlife law. Open fields cannot be within the curtiledge of a home or dwelling. You have to have a crime you are investigating.

So say for example you are US Forest Service LE Officer. You find an illegal waterline and diversion on the National Forest. There is no permit or right of way for improvement. In the course of your investigation you follow the waterline onto private property where it terminates at a MJ grow of approximately 10,000 plants. There is no dwelling or location of habitation at the grow site but there is one a couple hundred yards away.

This is legal PC to get a state warrant. The initial foray onto the private land was to investigate the waterline . All legal and has been for 100 years or more probably.
 
Last edited:
Usually state guys have to have Feds with them to use "open fields doctrine" The nexus must have been The Lacey Act or other Federal wildlife law. Open fields cannot be within the curtiledge of a home or dwelling. You have to have a crime you are investigating.

So say for example you are US Forest Service LE Officer. You find an illegal waterline and diversion on the National Forest. There is no permit or right of way for improvement. In the course of your investigation you follow the waterline onto private property where it terminates at a MJ grow of approximately 10,000 plants. There is no dwelling or location of habitation at the grow site but there is one a couple hundred yards away.

This is legal PC to get a state warrant. The initial foray onto the private land was to investigate the waterline . All legal and has been for 100 years or more probably.

hey that’s not nearly as fun to get worked up about.
 
What the public calls a SWAT team is usually a couple officers wearing vests in outer carriers with radios and a couple extra mags attached to them.

Anything that looks "tactical" is automatically "SWAT".
Alright, "Surrounded on all side of the house, and the driveway blocked, Hollingsworth was the target of approximately 10 federal and state
wildlife officials packing pistols, shotguns and rifles."
I'm familiar with what SWAT is.
The above sounds more like a responce to a armed hostage taker.
I've experienced a CPO with a vendetta first hand.

R
 
  • Like
Reactions: Woodlanddude
Alright, "Surrounded on all side of the house, and the driveway blocked, Hollingsworth was the target of approximately 10 federal and state
wildlife officials packing pistols, shotguns and rifles."
I'm familiar with what SWAT is.
The above sounds more like a responce to a armed hostage taker.
I've experienced a CPO with a vendetta first hand.

R
They were serving a warrant, of course there were more than 1 or 2 officers.

Of course they "surrounded the house", you cover front and back exits, as well as any side exits in case someone wants to rabbit. That is how warrants are served...especially when there is a certainty that the subject has weapons. That is why there were 10 of them.

Of course they had pistols, rifles and shotguns. That is what they use every single day. This ain't Mayberry.

This was not SWAT. If this had been a SWAT operation, then it would have been a no knock warrant and it would have been at the break of day, not in the middle of the morning when everyone is already awake.
 
They were serving a warrant, of course there were more than 1 or 2 officers.

Of course they "surrounded the house", you cover front and back exits, as well as any side exits in case someone wants to rabbit. That is how warrants are served...especially when there is a certainty that the subject has weapons. That is why there were 10 of them.

Of course they had pistols, rifles and shotguns. That is what they use every single day. This ain't Mayberry.

This was not SWAT. If this had been a SWAT operation, then it would have been a no knock warrant and it would have been at the break of day, not in the middle of the morning when everyone is already awake.
It's more along the lines of amount of force "thought" to be used for a
"suspected" poacher.
This force included all of the above for a trail cam...
Does this sound normal to you?

R
 
It's more along the lines of amount of force "thought" to be used for a
"suspected" poacher.
This force included all of the above for a trail cam...
Does this sound normal to you?

R
You are making the mistake of believing everything the article said, and the context in which they set it.

These types of articles are meant to piss you off. They do that by providing a blow by blow account of the aftermath, which is presented from the "victim" perspective, yet give you very little if any details about what led up to the result.

It would be interesting if they actually published a copy of the warrant. I, mean the suspect had a copy of it because part of warrant service is not only reading the warrant to the suspect, but leaving them a copy as well. I wonder why the contents of the warrant weren't brought out in the article?
 
@Skookum

Since you seem to know so much, do you know the actual reason The cams were placed on people’s private land or are you just making an educated guess?

I like how In the article those pussies came and removed their Cams all sneaky like.

I think either shoot em or take em down and shit on em.
Or is touching govt property illegally on your land a crime?

And dont give me the SCOTUS says its ok crap. They are as crooked as the rest and enjoy their position in the oligarchy too.

@deersniper - been using that word and your little meme the other day really highlighted it.
 
You are making the mistake of believing everything the article said, and the context in which they set it.

These types of articles are meant to piss you off. They do that by providing a blow by blow account of the aftermath, which is presented from the "victim" perspective, yet give you very little if any details about what led up to the result.

It would be interesting if they actually published a copy of the warrant. I, mean the suspect had a copy of it because part of warrant service is not only reading the warrant to the suspect, but leaving them a copy as well. I wonder why the contents of the warrant weren't brought out in the article?
Just as speculation of why they've placed the cameras.
I understand hype in media.
Conjecture.

R
 
Last edited:
The cops were just pissed he found their cameras. Sounds like they need to take some classes on how to hide cameras. It is an art. You ain't hiding cameras for deer. If you suspect there may be a camera there are ways to find it. Even if it was placed by an "Expert".

edit: The "Poacher" must be a scary dude. They weren't taking any chances.
 
Last edited:
Just like the dark ages....
The King's animals are free to come roam onto the peasant's land and the King's men can come beat on you & do bad things to you and your family if they don't like your handling of animals that come onto your property.

Yet apparently the peasant's animals can be harmed or killed by the King's men on or off the peasant's property with no consequence.

Seems to me that the King should keep their animals on their own land if they want to control what happens to them.
 
@Skookum

Since you seem to know so much, do you know the actual reason The cams were placed on people’s private land or are you just making an educated guess?

I like how In the article those pussies came and removed their Cams all sneaky like.

I think either shoot em or take em down and shit on em.
Or is touching govt property illegally on your land a crime?

And dont give me the SCOTUS says its ok crap. They are as crooked as the rest and enjoy their position in the oligarchy too.

@deersniper - been using that word and your little meme the other day really highlighted it.
The point is that we DON'T know. I'm pretty sure I said that already.

The game cam wasn't just property, it was evidence . He didn't commit theft, he tampered with an investigation.

We don't know what type of investigation. Was he suspected of shooting a deer out of season? Or was he baiting Bald Eagles for guided hunts?

You normally rational and critical thinkers are all too willing to dive into drama when certain buttons are pushed, and that makes you the target audience for this type of "journalism".

Ironically, if he had left them in place, they may never have gathered enough evidence for a warrant. But by removing them, he pretty much guaranteed one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So basically he is a poacher, and they set the game cams to catch him, and he found them and removed them.
JFC you would justify anything .gov does.

The constitution is just a obstacle to be knocked down right.

You people are why this country is circling the drain. Little napoleons with a authority complex.
 
Just like the dark ages....
The King's animals are free to come roam onto the peasant's land and the King's men can come beat on you & do bad things to you and your family if they don't like your handling of animals that come onto your property.

Yet apparently the peasant's animals can be harmed or killed by the King's men on or off the peasant's property with no consequence.

Seems to me that the King should keep their animals on their own land if they want to control what happens to them.
.gov owns everything. They just let you use it. Your house. The animals. Your children. Etc.

Terrorism. Rape murder etc running rampant and they are using how many men and hours to go after some citizen that offended some piss any by taking a camera that I’m sure had nothing on it that indicated it was from the tyrants.


Then you have boot lickers and boot wearers coming along to tell us we don’t know the whole story and to pick up that can.


Sounds like more of the same. Simon says Vegas shooting. The murder of that couple, the murder of diamond. Etc.
 
This is a no brainer based on experience. Hester vs the US is related to an illegal concealment of distilled liquor. Revenuers witnessed Hester exchanging jugs and when pursued he dropped one on his father's property. There was plenty of probable cause. The game cameras don't even come close to open field per this case. Oliver v. US is more like it. "...a field where marijuana was growing was not a protected space under the Fourth Amendment."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Concrete shooter
Skookum these revenuers have a hard on. They are taking advantage of their law enforcement powers by using a case from the moonshiner days. It is stupid. It is also a good way for a trespasser to get shot in the dark. A law enforcement officer should know it is not worth the risk never mind that it is illegal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W54/XM-388
JFC you would justify anything .gov does.

The constitution is just a obstacle to be knocked down right.

You people are why this country is circling the drain. Little napoleons with a authority complex.
I began serving this country in 1993 when I joined the military, and I am still serving today.

I've had almost 28 years of protecting and applying our constitution, and you have no idea who I am or what that has cost me.

So, you can eat a dick.
 
This is a no brainer based on experience. Hester vs the US is related to an illegal concealment of distilled liquor. Revenuers witnessed Hester exchanging jugs and when pursued he dropped one on his father's property. There was plenty of probable cause. The game cameras don't even come close to open field per this case. Oliver v. US is more like it. "...a field where marijuana was growing was not a protected space under the Fourth Amendment."

Those stupid religious fools who begged and clamoured for prohibition and all the stupid sheeple that agreed to it, had no idea how many freedoms they themselves were going to loose because they didn't like their fellow human's choice of beverage.

It's totally relevant to us because thanks to the idiots that brought about prohibition, the second amendment was downgraded from a first class natural right to a second class "only IF the government lets you and ONLY how the government lets you" privilege. If prohibition had never happened, the NFA and all the follow on gun laws all over the country wouldn't have gotten off the ground.

People never learn however.

Just like so many "good" folks today have no clue how the "war on drugs" they begged for and wholeheartedly supported, completely shredded their rights.
They still don't even understand it when they are freaking out about some heavy handed no knock warrant the police did that wound up killing folks. Well you asked for it, you begged for it, you wanted it. Did you think it was only ever going to be used against the people you despised?

To get our liberties truly back, you need to pretty much wipe the slate of laws and the entire justice system completely clean and start over again with your natural rights and build up from there, with NO cutouts for "well the old European law let the judges and magistrates be tyrants." But this time maybe perhaps we could smack upside the head with a shovel anyone that suggests we use the force of government to make others do what they think is right?
 
I began serving this country in 1993 when I joined the military, and I am still serving today.

I've had almost 28 years of protecting and applying our constitution, and you have no idea who I am or what that has cost me.

So, you can eat a dick.

There is a difference between military and peace officers. If you are basing your entire thought process based on being a Lifer than yeah I totally get how terrifying it might be for you to get through the entire supermarket shopping list, check out, and loaded up in your vehicle all by yourself without a panic attack.
 
There is a difference between military and peace officers. If you are basing your entire thought process based on being a Lifer than yeah I totally get how terrifying it might be for you to get through the entire supermarket shopping list, check out, and loaded up in your vehicle all by yourself without a panic attack.
My thought process comes from actual knowledge and experience.

Sorry I turned the light on the circle jerk you guys had going...

Carry on
 
My thought process comes from actual knowledge and experience.

Sorry I turned the light on the circle jerk you guys had going...

Carry on
YEah you have a awesome thought process.

“Perfectly reasonable to raid a guys house over him taking down a random game camera found on his own property”

You and Ginsberg et al really do a great job defending the constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WaltHer
I’ll agree that using open fields doctrine violates the spirt of the 4th amendment but not the letter of the law as it stands and as it has been interpreted with precedent. I feel like that’s a shady grey area where the law can violate your freedom and get away with it in most cases. It’s not right, but it’s legal, seems things like that come up a lot these days and I think it’s good to bring them up and talk about them. While it is legal it’s morally upsetting to any constitutional patriot and I find the TWRA officers willingness to “follow orders” on this issue yet another disturbing foretaste of what is to come if another gun ban is instituted.

odds are pretty solid that if TWRA Had been required to get a warrant for either of these individuals ( which I find more inline with my understanding of the constitution and preferable) they would have had no trouble convincing a judge due to prior hunting violations. It’s unfortunate, but when you have a record you get subjected to more scrutiny by the law. As an adult, I also understand that how law enforcement interprets the constitution in your AO often has nothing to do with how it’s written, no matter how plainly stated, the state orfederal Supreme Court May rule in your favor but only after an incredible amount of money is spent to keep your ass out of jail.

The 10 armed agents is probably just protocol for a warrant, and that is established at department levels or field office level for state and federal guys, more dependent on officer safety than anything. Serving warrants is inherrently dangerous business so officers will take appropriate precautions. You would think Though that since it had a transmitter, they already knew it’s last location. Call the guy and ask him if he knew about it’s disappearance, if he lies to you, then go in with a team and a warrant. But I’m no LEO.

I do feel that hanging the guy with theft or destruction of property is baseless and will fall apart in court; if the camera wasn’t labeled “property of TWRA” or “active investigation in process” or something similar, how is a land owner to know that it isnt a burglar casing his property or a serial killer or any number of other nefarious people intending to do him harm? If I find a camera on my property in the city and it isn’t labeled or it’s presence seems sketchy, I’m going to take it out of commission for my own security. I would probably also notify local law enforcement that I had found it and let them follow up but there isn’t anything saying you have to. Being a sarcastic asshole, I would probably just put a trash bag over it and when they came looking I’d say “ I didn’t know who’s this was but I saw all your fancy electronic gadgets were going to get wet so I covered it to keep it from getting ruined, you probably shouldn’t leave cameras outside, no telling what Might happen to that tax payers expense.” The next one I found would be turned to face the tree, and after that my aim with a shotgun would be off while squirrel hunting behind the camera.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuneBoer
YEah you have a awesome thought process.

“Perfectly reasonable to raid a guys house over him taking down a random game camera found on his own property”

You and Ginsberg et al really do a great job defending the constitution.
Ha! If you only knew how off base you are.😆

There is plenty of actual fucked up shit going on without having to manufacture it by reading into obviously one sided stories designed to incite those who lack critical thinking skills.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marbles
I’ll agree that using open fields doctrine violates the spirt of the 4th amendment but not the letter of the law as it stands and as it has been interpreted with precedent. I feel like that’s a shady grey area where the law can violate your freedom and get away with it in most cases. It’s not right, but it’s legal, seems things like that come up a lot these days and I think it’s good to bring them up and talk about them. While it is legal it’s morally upsetting to any constitutional patriot and I find the TWRA officers willingness to “follow orders” on this issue yet another disturbing foretaste of what is to come if another gun ban is instituted.

odds are pretty solid that if TWRA Had been required to get a warrant for either of these individuals ( which I find more inline with my understanding of the constitution and preferable) they would have had no trouble convincing a judge due to prior hunting violations. It’s unfortunate, but when you have a record you get subjected to more scrutiny by the law. As an adult, I also understand that how law enforcement interprets the constitution in your AO often has nothing to do with how it’s written, no matter how plainly stated, the state orfederal Supreme Court May rule in your favor but only after an incredible amount of money is spent to keep your ass out of jail.

The 10 armed agents is probably just protocol for a warrant, and that is established at department levels or field office level for state and federal guys, more dependent on officer safety than anything. Serving warrants is inherrently dangerous business so officers will take appropriate precautions. You would think Though that since it had a transmitter, they already knew it’s last location. Call the guy and ask him if he knew about it’s disappearance, if he lies to you, then go in with a team and a warrant. But I’m no LEO.

I do feel that hanging the guy with theft or destruction of property is baseless and will fall apart in court; if the camera wasn’t labeled “property of TWRA” or “active investigation in process” or something similar, how is a land owner to know that it isnt a burglar casing his property or a serial killer or any number of other nefarious people intending to do him harm? If I find a camera on my property in the city and it isn’t labeled or it’s presence seems sketchy, I’m going to take it out of commission for my own security. I would probably also notify local law enforcement that I had found it and let them follow up but there isn’t anything saying you have to. Being a sarcastic asshole, I would probably just put a trash bag over it and when they came looking I’d say “ I didn’t know who’s this was but I saw all your fancy electronic gadgets were going to get wet so I covered it to keep it from getting ruined, you probably shouldn’t leave cameras outside, no telling what Might happen to that tax payers expense.” The next one I found would be turned to face the tree, and after that my aim with a shotgun would be off while squirrel hunting behind the camera.


Not to mention how dangerous it could be for those officials putting up cameras in someone else's property. You know, with all the traps set for coyotes and what not. I'm pretty sure they would not like to fall down a well or something!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: deersniper
Those stupid religious fools who begged and clamoured for prohibition and all the stupid sheeple that agreed to it, had no idea how many freedoms they themselves were going to loose because they didn't like their fellow human's choice of beverage.

It's totally relevant to us because thanks to the idiots that brought about prohibition, the second amendment was downgraded from a first class natural right to a second class "only IF the government lets you and ONLY how the government lets you" privilege. If prohibition had never happened, the NFA and all the follow on gun laws all over the country wouldn't have gotten off the ground.

People never learn however.

Just like so many "good" folks today have no clue how the "war on drugs" they begged for and wholeheartedly supported, completely shredded their rights.
They still don't even understand it when they are freaking out about some heavy handed no knock warrant the police did that wound up killing folks. Well you asked for it, you begged for it, you wanted it. Did you think it was only ever going to be used against the people you despised?

To get our liberties truly back, you need to pretty much wipe the slate of laws and the entire justice system completely clean and start over again with your natural rights and build up from there, with NO cutouts for "well the old European law let the judges and magistrates be tyrants." But this time maybe perhaps we could smack upside the head with a shovel anyone that suggests we use the force of government to make others do what they think is right?

Not quite as simple as you tell. I grew up through the beginning of the failed drug war and remember it and until the 80's I dont remember anyone begging for a drug war.

It really started with Nixon then carried on with Ford. Under Carter, cannabis was nearly a non issue. THEN, the Jamaicans started getting really violent over the big money involved in cocaine, executing whole families. Then came in the cartels. Thats when Reagan really started the pressure and its never let up. Now its become big business with police receiving big bucks.

Even though I support making them all legal, somebody had to stand up to that violence.
 
Not quite as simple as you tell. I grew up through the beginning of the failed drug war and remember it and until the 80's I dont remember anyone begging for a drug war.

It really started with Nixon then carried on with Ford. Under Carter, cannabis was nearly a non issue. THEN, the Jamaicans started getting really violent over the big money involved in cocaine, executing whole families. Then came in the cartels. Thats when Reagan really started the pressure and its never let up. Now its become big business with police receiving big bucks.

Even though I support making them all legal, somebody had to stand up to that violence.

We lost the War on Drugs the day it was declared but ....I liked the work. ;)
 
What I read was a guy (with a minor infraction but bad history with TWRA) was being monitored by the TWRA without identifiable PC by the article.

Some facts assumed and not presented in the article given here:

Now IF a neighbor made a claim of the land owner was violating game laws, the TWRA has PC to set up the cams. They wanted to hammer this guy cause they had nothing else to do. The officer actions with the warrant were inflated cause of his "past bad TWRA history". His "stealing" the gam cam only seemed "legit" in the warrant application as the TWRA represented the actions as "that's what a poacher would do". So a judge sees it on face value, takes the officers words, assumes it's all reasonable...signs the warrant. Cool guys, with cool gear get to play!!!

The problem is now it's a legal case requiring MONEY to burn to find the TWRA wasn't reasonable in putting the cams on the property. Since the pics are EASILY going to show the land owner(s) were not violating ANY agency regulations.....you got to go thru the motions to get to the end if this situation. In the end he's out time, money, and any reputation he has within the community. He's not going to make any legal watermarks.....just another guy caught up a legal gill net......
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steve_In_29
@Skookum calls the story "one sided." Of course it is. IIRC .gov refused to comment to four request. Hard to get a two sided story when one side refuses to speak.

What was the writer supposed to do, not write the story due to the .gov refusing to talk?

Just like at a trial, when a defendant refuses to take the stand there is presumed guilt.
 
@Skookum calls the story "one sided." Of course it is. IIRC .gov refused to comment to four request. Hard to get a two sided story when one side refuses to speak.

What was the writer supposed to do, not write the story due to the .gov refusing to talk?

Just like at a trial, when a defendant refuses to take the stand there is presumed guilt.

Careful now those are a protected species here. And they get real sandy baginas when you call out their buddies on all their criminal or unconstitutional shenanigans