Police Surveillance legal guidelines

[LJB]

This document is too wide ranging for me to sum it very well. I think it describes the legal guidelines that police are supposed to follow, that is, if they want to stick with the letter of the law. I think it's extremely informative.

Below you'll find an excerpt. The pdf file is attached to this post.

download link - (pdf): http://le.alcoda.org/publications/files/SURVEILLANCE.pdf

source: Point of View ~ a publication of the Alameda County District Attorney's Office

also from the source link:

TOPICAL INDEX: The following articles may be downloaded in pdf format:

Detentions & Contacts
Investigative Detentions
Special Needs Detentions
Traffic Stops
Investigative ContactsMost Current Article
2003 Investigative Detentions
2003 Detaining Witnesses
2003 Traffic Stops
2006 Investigative "Contacts" Arrests
Arrests
Out-of-County Arrests
Citizens' Arrests
Post-Arrest Time LimitsMost Current Article
2009 Arrests
2004 Out-of-County Felony Arrests
2007 Citizens' Arrests
2009 Arrests Searches: Basic
Consent Searches
Consent Searches
Pat Searches
Searches Incident to Arrest
Entry and Search for Arrestee (Ramey)
Vehicle Searches
Probation and Parole Searches
Exigent Circumstance Searches
Exigent Circumstance Searches
Exigent Circumstance SearchesMost Current Article
2007 Consent Searches
2007 Third-Party Consent
2008 Pat Searches
2005 Searches Incident to Arrest
2005 Entry to Arrest (Ramey)
2009 Vehicle Searches
2009 Probation and Parole Searches
2004 Community Caretaking Searches
2002 Exigent Circumstances
2002 Exigent Responses Searches: Special
Voice mail, Email, and Text Msg Searches
Phone Internet, and Email Records
Financial Records
Workplace Searches
Searches on School Grounds
Booking Searches
Police TrespassingMost Current Article
2003 Voicemail
2004 Phone, Email, and Internet Records
2006 Obtaining Financial Records
2000 Workplace Searches
2007 Searches and Detentions ...
2005 "Second Look" .. Prisoners' Prop.
2003 Police TrespassingSearch Warrants
Search Warrants
Special Procedures
Executing WarrantsMost Current Article
2002 Search Warrants
2002 Search Warrant Special Procedures
2004 Executing Search Warrants Probable Cause
Principles of Probable Cause
Reliability of Information and Sources
Reliability of Information and Sources
Reliability of Information and Sources
Probable Cause to Arrest
Probable Cause to SearchMost Current Article
2008 The Principles of Probable Cause
2008 Probable Cause Information . . .
2005 The "Official Channels" Rule
2005 Detentions Based on 911 Calls
2008 Probable Cause to Arrest
2008 Probable Cause to Search Search-Related Procedures
Forcible Entry
Protective Sweeps
Knock and Talks
Plain View
Searches by Civilians and Police AgentsMost Current Article
2004 Knock-Notice
2004 Protective Sweeps
2006 Knock and Talks
2008 Plain View
2007 Searches by Civilians & Police... Surveillance
Surveillance
Intercepting Prisoner CommunicationsMost Current Article
2007 Police Surveillance
2005 Intercepting Prisoner Comm... Miranda
When Waivers are Required
When Waivers are Required
Waivers
Invocations
Invocations
Rules of SuppressionMost Current Article
2005 Miranda: When Warnings are Req....
2005 Miranda Exceptions
2006 Miranda Waivers and Invocations
2006 Post-Invocation Questioning
2006 Miranda Waivers and Invocations
2006 "Technical" Miranda Violations Questioning Suspects: Other Issues
Questioning Charged Suspects
Questioning By Police Agents (Massiah)
InterrogationMost Current Article
2007 The Right to Counsel in Criminal ...
2007 The Right to Counsel in Criminal ...
2009 Interrogation
Miscellaneous Subjects
Lineups and Showups
Digital Photos and Confessions
Testifying in CourtMost Current Article
2004 Lineups and Showups
2004 Digital Photos and Confessions
2009 Testifying in Court Motions
Motions to Suppress Evidence
Motions to Disclose Informants
Motions to Disclose Surveillance Sites
Harvey-Madden MotionsMost Current Article
2003 Averting Evidence Suppression
2006 Informants: Protecting Their Id...
2001 Protecting Surveillance Sites
2005 Harvey-Madden

Here is the excerpt:

Trespassing on the suspect’s property

At first glance, it might seem that surveillance conducted from any location on the suspect’s land would be unlawful. Not so. In fact, trespassing violates the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights only if it enabled officers to see or hear something that he reasonably believed would be private. Usually, however, mere encroachment onto private property seldom reveals such things. Thus, the United States Supreme Court explained, “[The] capacity to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment depends not upon a property right in the invaded place but upon whether the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.”19 Or, to put it more succinctly, “The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, not trespasses.”20

Accordingly, officers do not violate a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights by walking onto his private property if they confine their excursion to places in which the public had been expressly or impliedly invited.21 This type of trespassing, commonly known as “technical” or “common law” trespassing, does not offend the Fourth Amendment because it is reasonably foreseeable. After all, people know that others will regularly walk onto their property to, for example, visit, deliver the mail or a package, inquire about a lost dog, sell Girl Scout cookies or maybe even a ticket to the local Police Officer’s Ball.

Accordingly, a trespass by officers will not constitute a Fourth Amendment violation if both of the following circumstances existed:

(1) Normal access routes: They stayed on or near normal access routes, driveways, common areas, or open fields.

(2) Access not barred: The suspect did not take reasonably effective measures to prevent entry into the location.​

NORMAL ACCESS ROUTES: Officers who walk onto a suspect’s property will seldom violate his Fourth Amendment rights if they stayed on normal access routes. “A sidewalk, pathway, common entrance or similar passageway,” said the California Supreme Court, “offers an implied permission to the public to enter which necessarily negates any reasonable expectation of privacy in regard to observations made there.”22

Furthermore, officers may ordinarily stray somewhat from these areas if their departure was not too unusual.23 An example of an impermissible departure is found in People v. Camacho24 where officers walked along the side of the defendant’s home for a distance of about 40 feet from the sidewalk. In ruling that this constituted a Fourth Amendment trespass, the California Supreme Court noted, “[T]here was neither a path nor a walkway, nor was there an entrance to the home accessible from the side yard.”

Similarly, entering a suspect’s backyard is likely to constitute a Fourth Amendment trespass because backyards are relatively private places, plus they are usually surrounded by fences. For that reason, the court in Vidaurri v. Superior Court ruled that “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 for that area.”25

DRIVEWAYS: Because driveways are almost always accessible to the public, officers may ordinarily walk on them, even if they do not serve as normal access routes.26 Thus, the Tenth Circuit said matter-of-factly, “[P]olice observations made from the driveway do not constitute a search.”27

COMMON AREAS: Officers do not violate a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights by conducting surveillance from hallways, staircases, lobbies, garages, and other common areas of multiple-occupant buildings, such as apartments, condominiums, motels, and office buildings.28 As the court observed in People v. Seals, “[P]olice officers in performance of their duty may, without doing violence to the Constitution, enter upon the common hallway of an apartment building without warrant or express permission to do so.”29 This is true even if the officers had to climb over a locked gate to gain access.30

cont.

Do not skip the footnotes.

 

[LJB]

If you grow in a dwelling, you should read this document.

 

[igrowone]

a rather thoughtful posting, this is indeed worth reading through
and the upshot is, police can walk on your property in ways you may have thought they couldn't without a warrant

 

[ilovethewest]

OK so a haven't read this in any place that i would call "a legal authority", but its floating around my head that if you have a fence around your property, and a gate on the fence, that the popo aint allowed to just "walk" onto your property, and that the above is then invalid, as you have taken measures to keep random poeple from walking onto your property. dont know if its true, but i have heard it from a handfull of people.

 

[igrowone]

this seems to jibe with the original post
certain parts of your property are considered more private than others
if you have taken actions to separate your property from public access, then privacy is the rule
i think there is some sense of this in most peoples heads, having a grow visible from you front door is probably not a good idea

 

[NiteTiger]

OK so a haven't read this in any place that i would call "a legal authority", but its floating around my head that if you have a fence around your property, and a gate on the fence, that the popo aint allowed to just "walk" onto your property, and that the above is then invalid, as you have taken measures to keep random poeple from walking onto your property. dont know if its true, but i have heard it from a handfull of people.

That's exactly what the document said

 

[LJB]

Have a moat, a fenced in yard and a gated driveway?

 

[LJB]

this seems to jibe with the original post
certain parts of your property are considered more private than others
if you have taken actions to separate your property from public access, then privacy is the rule
i think there is some sense of this in most peoples heads, having a grow visible from you front door is probably not a good idea

Not only visibility, but audibility. If LEOs can walk along side your domicile and *hear* what appears to be illegal activity, that might be enough probable cause for them to obtain a search warrant.

 

[NiteTiger]

Not only visibility, but audibility. If LEOs can walk along side your domicile and *hear* what appears to be illegal activity, that might be enough probable cause for them to obtain a search warrant.

Eh, that's gonna be a real damn stretch. I mean like Rubber Man sort of stretching. You have to be able to show how a reasonable person, in that same situation, would come to the conclusion that the sound is illegal activity.

Fans, pumps, even the humming of a ballast, none of that is illegal, either individually or in total. Therefore, it is not enough to violate someone's home. Hell, if they did get a warrant based on that, count yourself lucky, because your defense attorney is going to chew them up and spit them out.

Besides, if anything can be heard from outside your house, you're doing it wrong

And while a moat and such would certainly work, a simple privacy hedge might be a bit less... odd.

 

[LJB]

Fans, pumps, even the humming of a ballast, none of that is illegal, either individually or in total. Therefore, it is not enough to violate someone's home. Hell, if they did get a warrant based on that, count yourself lucky, because your defense attorney is going to chew them up and spit them out.

By itself, audible sounds coming from fans, ballasts, etc. are not going to be enough go gain a search warrant, but they are certainly a factor that can lead to one.

It took me all of five seconds to find this, so spending a little bit of time I could probably find dozens of similar examples:

http://openjurist.org/94/f3d/653/united-states-v-a-burgdorfer

In addition, the agent received an anonymous tip that defendant was involved in marijuana production; the agent smelled the odor of marijuana from the pasture area; and the agent heard the sound of a blower or exhaust fan. We find that the readings taken outside the fence, the odor, the sound of the blower, and the anonymous tip, without any reliance upon the one reading taken within the curtilage, established probable cause and supported the issuance of the search warrant. See, e.g., Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983) (finding that anonymous information coupled with independent corroboration of predicted activity, even though innocent on its face, can establish probable cause under totality-of-the-circumstances analysis). The judgment of the district court is

11
AFFIRMED.

That's for anyone needs to be shown why it's so obvious that sounds from equipment shouldn't be audible outside of the building they are housed in.

 

[NiteTiger]

Sure, the blower fans are mentioned, but it is virtually irrelevant in this case. The key on this one is

...the agent smelled the odor of marijuana...

Everything else is window dressing, that's all he needed. Blower made little appreciable difference, with or without it that warrant gets issued.

And yeah, like I said, I agree with you - if your garden is audible from outside your house, you're doing it wrong

 

[ItsGrowTime]

Thought I'd add a link to Yahoo's LEO policy in pdf. Interesting read. If you have links to other reliable surveillance info please post it.

http://88.80.16.63/leak/yahoo-compliance-guide-for-law-enforcement-2008.pdf

 

[dopey the clown]

Friends in law enforcement.

From what I gather it's like this-slowly ease new guys into bending the rules. You know, the whole "if we played by the way these damn hippy liberals wanted all these evil criminals would get away!!" Do whatever you have to to build a case. Once you've got one, clean it up.


Not exactly shocking or mind-blowing, but you get the picture if you didn't suspect this already. Human nature to some degree. Bottom line-this is interesting information, but a huge percentage of arrests are initially conducted wayyyyy outside the letter of the law, then cleaned up for the judge(warrant)and then even more so for trial. Add in the fact that most judges will get more shit on a personal and career-level for denying search warrants than granting, and the fact that they know a lot of these pigs on a personal, day-to-day level. They have all the motivation to overlook things and grant and absolutely none to preserve the law for it's own sake.

 

[Possum]

Furthermore in a med state none of those things are proof of illegal activity and are baseless grounds for a warrent!

but is the smell of cannabis enough evidence for a warrent?

the smell of burnt cannabis is not proof of on-going criminal activity. all of the cannabis could have been burned away long ago leaving nothing illegal.

plus - i think that it's about time we tested the ability of humans to smell cannabis from outside a residence and not take for granted that one can.

i would like to put them to the test. we really out to organize to spend some time putting their powers and abilities on trial. much better them on trial than us.

 

[henrydaniels]

Furthermore in a med state none of those things are proof of illegal activity and are baseless grounds for a warrent!

but is the smell of cannabis enough evidence for a warrent?

Even in a med state, I definatly think sound and smell would be grounds for a warrent. Im pretty sure that the cops do not have access to the registry unless they have somebody in custody. Therefore, they are going to target any possible location, and then LATER try and find out if the grow was legal or not. If it turns out they busted a medical grow, then theres still the chance of arresting them from plant #'s.

 

[Possum]

because it is a med. state they do NOT have proof of criminal activity.

therefore rights are being violated and attorneys should argue such.

just becuase cops are a bunch of goat f'n cock smokin' homos doesn't mean they have the rite to ignore the constitution of the united states.

 

[hamstring]

Friends in law enforcement.

From what I gather it's like this-slowly ease new guys into bending the rules. You know, the whole "if we played by the way these damn hippy liberals wanted all these evil criminals would get away!!" Do whatever you have to to build a case. Once you've got one, clean it up.


Not exactly shocking or mind-blowing, but you get the picture if you didn't suspect this already. Human nature to some degree. Bottom line-this is interesting information, but a huge percentage of arrests are initially conducted wayyyyy outside the letter of the law, then cleaned up for the judge(warrant)and then even more so for trial. Add in the fact that most judges will get more shit on a personal and career-level for denying search warrants than granting, and the fact that they know a lot of these pigs on a personal, day-to-day level. They have all the motivation to overlook things and grant and absolutely none to preserve the law for it's own sake.

Familiarity breeds contempt

First of all it is so important to know your rights with out question, but the above is the real deal nothing to do with the letter of the law.

If you follow the NBA and saw 60 minutes you see that what happens when refs get close to players or coaches it sways their calls. The proverb wasn’t invented yesterday. To think that cops, judges or lawyers actually follow the law is just silly and dangerous.
PEACE

 

[Lazyman]

I think I need to put a chain with a third "NO TRESPASSING" sign hung from the middle of it, across my driveway. THey would have to hop this "gate" to get to my curtilage.

I also want a drawbridge on the road to my future home, over a culvert or ditch if possible. Surrounded by a 10' high concrete block wall with razor wire on top. With land mines around the outside of it. MUahahahaha!!! I'll make San Quentin look like McDonalds playland by the time I'm done, just prepping for the zombie attack or the apocalypse, whichever comes first!

 

[Dr. Smokepuma]

well in DC area they watch the place for 6 months gathered power bill from the power company and used I.R on the place then they got a warrent the judge said I.R is with in their power to use...so I.R is in...so to speak.

 

[ItsGrowTime]

well in DC area they watch the place for 6 months gathered power bill from the power company and used I.R on the place then they got a warrent the judge said I.R is with in their power to use...so I.R is in...so to speak.

Lemme guess....Fairfax?