GOV/MIL Government Cameras Hidden on Private Property? Welcome to Open Fields

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.

Can the government place cameras and monitoring equipment on a private citizen’s land at will, or conduct surveillance and stakeouts on private land, without probable cause or a search warrant? Indeed, according to the U.S. Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Welcome to Open Fields.

The vast majority of Americans assume law enforcement needs a warrant to carry out surveillance, but for roughly a century, SCOTUS has ruled that private land—is not private. Fourth Amendment protections against “unreasonable searches and seizures” expressed in the Bill of Rights only apply to an individual’s immediate dwelling area, according to SCOTUS.

However, SCOTUS’ Open Fields doctrine has been bucked in Mississippi, Montana, New York, Oregon and Vermont through protections granted by state constitutions, and for many American landowners, the more they discover about Open Fields—the more questions they have regarding the bounds of government power.

In Tennessee, Hollingsworth and Terry Rainwaters, another landowner who discovered multiple trail cameras on his property placed by the state, are taking their cases to state court, claiming violations of the Tennessee State Constitution. The Rainwaters and Hollingsworth stories contain alarming claims regarding the behavior of wildlife officials and raise a bevy of questions over Open Fields, states’ rights, and the sanctity of private property.

Legal Stalking?
On bottomland squeezed in the rolling hills of northwest Tennessee’s Benton County, a short walk from the banks of the Big Sandy River, Terry Rainwaters, 53, owns 136 acres of land containing two homes, farmland and an equipment shed. Rainwaters and his son, Hunter Rainwaters, 20, live in one of the homes; a tenant occupies the other. The acreage is the physical center of Rainwaters’ life—a small place to farm, hunt and reside—with one way in, one way out, and a gate that stays locked, backed by “no trespassing” and “posted” signs.

On his way to hunt on his father’s land during the first week of December 2017, Hunter Rainwaters was driving a side-by-side through the property when he noticed an oddity positioned roughly 4’ off the ground. He popped the brakes, backed toward the object and looked in surprise at a trail camera belted to a tree.

“I didn’t see any words or stickers on it, but I knew right away it wasn’t ours,” Hunter Rainwaters recalls.

Following the hunt, he drove back onto the family property and spotted a second trail camera attached to a tree with several branches removed to allow for an unimpeded lens view. Rainwaters dialed his father’s cellphone, and described the two cameras: “I was shaken up when my son called and I knew immediately it had to be the TWRA (Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency),” Rainwaters recalls.

Deeply disturbed, Rainwaters arrived home later in the afternoon and took a look at the two cameras, mulling over whether to remove the pair. Two days later, with Rainwaters in limbo on what action to take—both cameras disappeared.

“Ask TWRA how many cameras they have on people’s private land right now watching their every move,” Rainwaters says. “I’ll bet they won’t answer that question and we all know why. No warrants, no judge, and no crime necessary, just set up surveillance and do whatever they want to.”

(Farm Journal asked TWRA multiple questions related to the use of trail cameras in surveilling Tennessee residents, including, but not limited to: Does TWRA have a list of past camera locations and current, active cameras? Who in TWRA is allowed to view the footage? How long are the cameras allowed to operate in place? Does TWRA recommend prosecution for a landowner for breaking or removing a camera? TWRA declined comment: “The Agency cannot comment on matters in litigation, nor can we provide comment on issues that are currently being litigated.” TWRA directed all questions to the Tennessee Attorney General’s office. However, the Tennessee AG office declined comment.)

“The cameras were collecting pictures of us hunting, driving and just our lives,” he adds. “One of the cameras was even recording footage up to the back of my tenant’s house.”

Rainwaters contends he has encountered armed TWRA agents on his private property on multiple occasions, either crossing his land or hiding in undergrowth during hunting season. Rainwaters explains: “TWRA officers sneak onto my land with no cause other than hoping to find somebody doing something wrong. I’ve got a clean hunting record and don’t look for trouble with nobody, but people just can’t believe what has happened on my land. It’s so wrong on so many levels and way past outrageous and dangerous. I don’t think people realize a ‘no trespassing’ sign or ‘private land’ sign mean nothing to the TWRA.”

The alleged surveillance may have origins partially related to 2016 hunting violations, Rainwaters says, when his son and a group of friends were ticketed for baiting doves: “I paid their fines myself in what amounted to $380 times eight people. Yeah, all this started over hunting tickets and now TWRA thinks it’s OK to set up surveillance on my land.”

“Before all of this, we never realized what they are able to do on private land,” Rainwaters adds. “We’ve gotten so much response from people fired up over the TWRA, and most of them are like me, they’d never even heard of this ridiculous doctrine called Open Fields.”

PART 2

Open Fields
The vast majority of Americans assume law enforcement needs a warrant to carry out surveillance, but for roughly a century, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has ruled that private land—is not so private. Fourth Amendment protections against “unreasonable searches and seizures” expressed in the Bill of Rights only apply to an individual’s immediate dwelling and curtilage, according to SCOTUS. Curtilage is an arcane term loosely translated as the area directly around a home, or the yard.

In 1924, Hester v. United States set up the Open Fields framework and said the U.S. Constitution does not extend to most land: “the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their ‘persons, houses, papers, and effects,’ is not extended to the open fields.” Significantly, Open Fields is translated beyond its literal sense, and basically is defined as general acreage: woods, fields, farmland, barren ground, and more.

Further, in 1984, SCOTUS gave additional strength to Open Fields in Oliver v. United States: “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.”

“I’m surprised we haven’t already heard more about Open Fields,” says Stephen Mutnick, a criminal defense attorney with Winslow & McCurry, PLLC in Midlothian, Va. “For right now, landowners have to remember that Fourth Amendment protections only extend to the home, personal effects and the curtilage. If you post your property no trespassing, private citizens have to stay away, but that doesn’t apply to government officials who don’t even need probable cause.”

However, SCOTUS’ Open Fields doctrine has been bucked in Mississippi, Montana, New York, Oregon and Vermont through protections granted by state constitutions. The Institute for Justice (IJ), a national libertarian law firm and legal advocacy group representing clients pro bono, has taken on both the Rainwaters and Hollingsworth cases. Tennessee could become the first state in 20 years to reject Open Fields.

“We got involved (Terry Rainwaters and Hunter Hollingsworth v. TWRA; Ed Carter; and Kevin Hoofman) in both cases because we see an egregious abuse of property and privacy rights under the Tennessee Constitution, and an opportunity to show why the federal Open Fields doctrine is so misguided,” says IJ attorney Joshua Windham.

(Farm Journal asked TWRA for its perspective on the Open Fields doctrine. TWRA declined comment: “The Agency cannot comment on matters in litigation, nor can we provide comment on issues that are currently being litigated.” TWRA directed all inquiries to the Tennessee Attorney General’s office. However, the Tennessee AG office did not respond to questions from Farm Journal.)

Windham insists private gates and “no trespassing” signs apply to government officials. “Otherwise the government is saying, ‘Your private land is my public property.’ Terry Rainwaters lives on his property, has a clean hunting record, yet he has to put up with wildlife officers hiding in bushes, ducking behind grass, and covertly recording his movements? By any definition, that is incredibly invasive,” Windham says.

“Everyone must keep in mind that the trail cameras were removed before Terry could take them down,” Windham continues. “That leaves at least two questions. One, how many pictures were taken? Two, how long were they going to keep taking them if Terry had never discovered the cameras?”

Windham’s questions rip the lid off a Pandora’s Box of additional queries. How often does TWRA place warrantless photo or video cameras on the land of state residents? Beyond the officer who places the camera, who else is in the know? Does TWRA have a list of past camera locations and current, active cameras? Who in government is allowed to view the footage? Who owns the footage? Is the government recording private/personal moments? Can the government film for days, weeks, years? Does TWRA recommend prosecution of a landowner for breaking or removing a camera? From both legal and ethical perspectives, the questions are extensive.

“Most people recognize that if the government can enter your land on a whim, and photograph you, or videotape you, without a warrant, that’s wrong on a basic level. But unfortunately, TWRA has been doing this for years and they’re still doing it today. What happened to Terry Rainwaters is not isolated—it’s widespread,” Windham says. “Look at Hunter Hollingsworth, for example. When people hear the details of what TWRA did on his land, they’re shocked.”

Secrets and Shadows
On ground that rubs the banks of the Big Sandy, roughly 5 miles as the crow flies from Terry Rainwaters’ farm, Hollingsworth owns 95 acres split between Henry and Benton counties. The acreage is remote, one road in and out, and gate access requires an easement access crossing two other landowners.

Approximately an hour before daylight on the morning of Jan. 26, 2018, Hollingsworth entered his property, intending to duck hunt, and as his truck rounded a curve, the headlights threw an unusual reflection high up a scrub oak—just enough light to spark Hollingsworth’s curiosity. Despite the likelihood of a raccoon or a forgotten piece of a rotting deer stand, he stopped the vehicle, walked toward the tree, and shined a flashlight up the trunk, illuminating the unexpected: a game camera and antenna zip-tied in place with the lens trained directly on his road and property.

Unnerved, Hollingsworth climbed into the tree, took note of several sawed limbs, cut the zip-ties, and removed the camera. Inside, he found an SD card for photo storage and a SIM card for message transmission

“That camera had no markings on it, and it shook me up. I threw it in the truck and tried to go hunting, but all I could think of was how many more cameras were out there on my land. Hell, how could I have known right then, that months later, the Feds and TWRA would storm into my house and accuse me of stealing their property? Unreal, but it happened.”

The following afternoon, Hollingsworth accessed the memory card and found that over 1,000 photos of himself, family and friends (and TWRA officers entering his property) had been taken and transmitted. The earliest photos were dated Nov. 30, 2017, indicating the camera had been active for at least two months. The camera enabled round-the-clock monitoring of Hollingsworth, and TWRA was aware each time he entered or exited his land.

On the morning of Sept. 7, 2018, months after finding the camera, Hollingsworth was finishing breakfast when USFWS and TWRA officers surrounded his property and ordered to him to open the front door. “They were armed with all kind of guns, extra clips, first aid kits, and bulletproof vests—all to get the same game camera they snuck onto my land.”

(Farm Journal asked USFWS for comment on Hollingsworth v. TWRA and the search of Hollingsworth’s residence related to the game camera. In addition, Farm Journal asked for USFWS’ perspective on the Open Fields doctrine. USFWS declined comment on the entirety: “...we have no comment regarding this matter.”)

Hollingsworth was hit with hunting violations related to dove baiting, and also charged for theft of the trail camera in August 2019. Flatly stated, Hollingsworth believes the government was hunting a bullfrog with a shotgun. “I ended up with my first conviction for hunting over bait. I paid $5,000 for a lawyer and a $3,000 fine, lost my hunting license for three years, and missed a week of work. I’m not innocent of everything and I’m not above the law, but this was so heavy-handed and over the top, and I pleaded because I was in a headlock. They threatened me with jail time and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines when in reality, I was railroaded over a camera.”

Ironically, the announced entry and search of Hollingsworth’s home required a warrant; the secret entry and hidden search of Hollingsworth’s private land required no warrant. The distinction is a capsule version of the Open Fields doctrine.

Hollingsworth filed a complaint (Hollingsworth v. TWRA) over the game camera in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee Eastern Division, alleging violation of his constitutional rights, and on Oct. 21, 2019, Judge S. Thomas Anderson dismissed Hollingsworth’s suit, partially due to reliance on the Open Fields doctrine.

Bottom line, a federal judge told Hollingsworth he had no reasonable expectation of privacy on his farm, and that his Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by TWRA’s trespass and camera installation. Anderson wrote: “It follows that Defendants (TWRA) mounted the camera in what can only be described as ‘open field,’ an area beyond the scope of the Fourth Amendment’s protections. Without some particular allegation to show that Defendants conducted a warrantless search of his home or the curtilage of the home, Plaintiff has failed to allege a Fourth Amendment violation.”

Despite Anderson’s ruling, Hollingsworth is adamant: Secret surveillance is “gut-level” wrong. During the duration of the camera’s presence, he drove by it countless times and discovered the device by pure chance—a fluke. No matter how much time goes by, Hollingsworth can’t shake persistent questions about more cameras. “How many others were on my land? How many are there now? Why not movie cameras? Listening devices? They’re apparently allowed to do all this by the U.S. Constitution anytime they feel like it, so where does it end? They’re allowed to film wives, daughters, girlfriends in areas where privacy is assumed?”

PART 3

“Let It All Hang Out”
Atop the pile of similarities shared between the Rainwaters and Hollingsworth cases, sits a benchmark factor: TWRA’s original trespasses had no warrant and no probable cause. Thus far, SCOTUS has excused such federal action under the Fourth Amendment, but IJ attorney Windham contends Open Fields is in direct conflict with the state constitution.

“The purpose of Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution is to protect the right of people to be secure in their private property,” he says. “You are not secure in your property if state officers can enter your land, wander around, and record video footage of you and your private activities without a warrant. The same should also be true under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but that’s a fight for another day.”

Again, under Open Fields, surveillance possibilities, particularly aided by digital technology, are increasingly invasive, and bound to expand as technological capabilities grow in tandem. Drones, live footage, powerful listening devices, virtual stakeouts and more were once the realm of sci-fi, but now must be reckoned as part of the Open Fields package.

“The Fourth Amendment is notoriously slow in catching up with technology,” says Mutnick, the attorney with Winslow & McCurry. He expects the Open Fields doctrine to gain more attention in the near-future, partially spurred by a rapid increase in surveillance tech. “Open Fields has basically been untouched by the Supreme Court since 1984, but think about the expanse of digital capability since the 1980s.”

Under Open Fields, any type of search on private land is legal, Windham says: “Any reasonable person out there recognizes the danger in allowing the government such power. The vast majority of us share a basic American understanding that private means private. We’re challenging TWRA’s initial entry of the properties and installation of the cameras, and there’s no evidence of a warrant for those searches. The positive news is that we have state constitutions. Even though TWRA thinks it has authority, we’re saying TWRA must follow the Tennessee Constitution and none of this is OK.”

Without accountability, the ability of a government official to monitor a private citizen, at will, is rife for abuse, Windham continues. “TWRA should have to get a warrant for these searches, plain and simple. You need an objective judge to consider each case and decide whether it makes sense for officers to enter private property. Otherwise, you have officers making decisions in the field, possibly based on their own subjective feelings or motivations, about when and how to search people’s private property.”

“I want to reiterate the significance of what is happening to Tennesseans on their private land,” Windham concludes. “This is about so much more than hunting or cameras. This is about the basic right of every Tennessean for privacy on their own property. Terry and Hunter are standing up for that right. They want the surveillance to end—on their land and everywhere else.”

As for Rainwaters and Hollingsworth, the pair is in agreement: The marriage of privacy and property rights is currently neglected by SCOTUS, but state constitutions must protect the union.

“I’m forced to assume I’m being watched on my land right now and it’s an awful feeling; just like the worst feeling in the world,” Rainwaters describes. “People hear the story and at first they can’t believe it’s happened, but I think the public should know about every detail of what their officials are doing in secret; let it all hang out for everyone to see.”

Hollingsworth echoes Rainwaters’ sentiments, and adds punctuation: “I’m so glad the Institute for Justice has helped us, otherwise we’d never have the resources to fight. This whole deal has made me so paranoid, and I find myself constantly checking for cameras or listening devices. Are we still in America? They get to put up secret cameras on our land and get live photos of what we’re doing, and that’s protected by the Constitution? There’s something fundamentally wrong with this whole picture.”

Again, Farm Journal asked TWRA for comment on Hollingsworth v. TWRA; the search of Hollingsworth’s residence related to the game camera; and the current Rainwaters-Hollingsworth v. TWRA case. TWRA declined comment on the entirety: “The Agency cannot comment on matters in litigation, nor can we provide comment on issues that are currently being litigated.” TWRA directed all questions to the Tennessee Attorney General’s office, but the AG office declined comment.

I understand that if you can stand on public land and see something on private land, that is not private. If you need to sneak on to someone's land and place cameras in order to see what is going on, that is an invasion of privacy and a violation of the 4th. Get a warrant to do so.

This also applies to using drones to fly over property. If you are taking pictures or watching what happens, you are violating their privacy.

As satellite-based surveillance improves, they soon won't need the game cams anymore. In fact, it's pretty damn capable already.

I have had them come onto my farm doing surveillance , I haven’t found cameras but my Dog and I have found them hidden in brush.

This during duck season, Game wardens have more power than just about anybody in what they can do...

Hognutz said:

I have had them come onto my farm doing surveillance , I haven’t found cameras but my Dog and I have found them hidden in brush.

This during duck season, Game wardens have more power than just about anybody in what they can do...

Click to expand...

With those tactics, it's a miracle that you don't hear of them catching some "stray" lead from time to time.

Thanks for posting this!
I had no idea.

I almost went to work for Fish and Wildlife.
They kept saying that they could go on anyone's land for any reason, and I kept asking about the Constitutionality of such practice......Now I see that it's probably why I didn't get the job.
It's almost like they were catering to stalkers and bad actors.

I don't care that SCOTUS gave the OK, this "Open Fields" stuff (law? act?) is BS.
There needs to be recourse for when SCOTUS messes up (like US v. Miller, 1939 which cemented NFA as law in one of SCOTUS' largest blunders)

Definition of curtilage vs. Open fields comes into play. Imho

Sicario said:

With those tactics, it's a miracle that you don't hear of them catching some "stray" lead from time to time.

Click to expand...

Game Wardens, Fish and Wildlife, Forestry, etc. actually have the highest death rate of all law enforcement, by a wide margin.
They say it is because they are going up against better armed bad actors in the woods, but this probably contributes.

ArisenCarcass said:

I almost went to work for Fish and Wildlife.
They kept saying that they could go on anyone's land for any reason, and I kept asking about the Constitutionality of such practice......Now I see that it's probably why I didn't get the job.
It's almost like they were catering to stalkers and bad actors.

I don't care that SCOTUS gave the OK, this "Open Fields" stuff (law? act?) is BS.
There needs to be recourse for when SCOTUS messes up (like US v. Miller, 1939 which cemented NFA as law in one of SCOTUS' largest blunders)

Click to expand...

They actually can't. Yet like most people they find a method that does allow them to do so and use that method everytime, effectively giving them unlimited access. For example, I heard a gun shot, I am investigating a "poaching" case.

20Gauge said:

They actually can't. Yet like most people they find a method that does allow them to do so and use that method everytime, effectively giving them unlimited access. For example, I heard a gun shot, I am investigating a "poaching" case.

Click to expand...

At least now they are required to wear body cams.
Maybe some of the corruption will go away.......

ArisenCarcass said:

At least now they are required to wear body cams.
Maybe some of the corruption will go away.......

Click to expand...

Doubtful.

I can see it now.......

Yes your Honor, I believe it was a poaching case and acted accordingly. So all the other stuff I did to spy on them is legal.

Judge..... Yep, you are good to go.

Game cameras without tags are illegal. If you find one, cut it off the tree, take it home and report it to the wildlife department immediately. Once you find one, sweep the property regularly, cut the cameras down when you find them and keep reporting them. If it's the wildlife department putting them up, they'll get tired of having to take them back all the time and either stop or tell you to your face that you have to leave them alone when you find them, at which point you can go to the local news and tell them all about how the government is forcing you to let them spy on you.

This is typical of government - at all levels - disdain for citizens' rights. Additionally, it flies in the face of the concept of limited government. Anyone in this country from the latter part of the 19th Century to today who was looking for a sure bet growth industry, could do no better than investing their time in government.

The Bill Of Rights, which supposedly protected citizens from government, has been progressively eviscerated over the decades to the point where our "rights" have been relegated to the status of privileges.

Hognutz, above, stated, "I have had them come onto my farm doing surveillance , I haven’t found cameras but my Dog and I have found them hidden in brush. This during duck season, Game wardens have more power than just about anybody in what they can do..."

I agree wholeheartedly with his observations regarding game wardens. This extra-constitutional situation is similar with game wardens in Mississippi. Additionally, I must point out that the US Coast Guard possesses extreme extra-constitutional powers within US territorial waters. Probable cause? Forget it. The Coast Guard can randomly stop boaters anywhere for so-called safety checks, searches and vessel documentation inspections.

It's long past time that government agencies were properly relegated to operating within the parameters of their proper constitutional limits.

I'm not holding my breath.

Best
Doc

Note they will not tell you how to go about it so they need warrant's to do these things, that's up to you to figure it out.

"Open Fields" should be exactly that. ANYTHING which can be observed OUTSIDE of the owner's responsibility is fair game.

Consider the FBI surveiling interior communication using laser reflection from the windows. Everything they do is "outside" and observable at distance. A house owner can't control what happens outside his property line, or even (very well) how much his windows "bounce" with sound vibration.

Consider those that come to take pix of myself (Owner's "field art") are fine as long as they stand outside the borderline and take the picture from there. As soon as they set foot on Owner's property, Owner then has thrust upon him a responsibility for their safety, not to mention any other legal ramification their foreign presence may impose upon Owner.

THIS is why Owner's homeowner's insurance has a caveat protecting Owner against (say) the mailman who slips on Owner's icy front stoop and sues Owner for his inattention to the ice and the hazard it presents.

Entering foreign entities OF ALL KINDS including government carry with them the same threat to Owner as they pass onto his land.

The entrance to do their bidding is where the legal umbrage lies - not necessarily the invasion of privacy - which is actually secondary.

In Cow Hampshire, most land is "free access" meaning one is free to pass across another's land in execution of some purpose not connected with that land. Thus one can "hunt" or one can "shortcut" travel. But one cannot pass across and tarry in doing so such as setting up accommodation (i.e. which might create an "Ownership by Adverse Possession" situation.)

Free Access unless one sets up NO TRESPASS signage. The No Trespass gives a land owner "one warning" privilege before he calls the police for removal. (i.e. an owner can't physically remove trespassers himself, but this frees the police to do an owner's bidding on removal.) "Trespassing" thus becomes a government charge against those an owner has found in violation. Similar to "no-parking or business parking zones" in front of a business.

I would wager given the large amounts of land under discussion in the OP, that the property was not posted NO TRESPASS. Thus anyone entering does so under the Free Access consideration. As in - In entry they can have no purpose connected with the land OR ITS OCCUPANTS.

Methinks given the proper legal challenge, this use of surveillance technique could be ended.

Dobbin

Doc1 said:

This is typical of government - at all levels - disdain for citizens' rights. Additionally, it flies in the face of the concept of limited government. Anyone in this country from the latter part of the 19th Century to today who was looking for a sure bet growth industry, could do no better than investing their time in government.

The Bill Of Rights, which supposedly protected citizens from government, has been progressively eviscerated over the decades to the point where our "rights" have been relegated to the status of privileges.

Hognutz, above, stated, "I have had them come onto my farm doing surveillance , I haven’t found cameras but my Dog and I have found them hidden in brush. This during duck season, Game wardens have more power than just about anybody in what they can do..."

I agree wholeheartedly with his observations regarding game wardens. This extra-constitutional situation is similar with game wardens in Mississippi. Additionally, I must point out that the US Coast Guard possesses extreme extra-constitutional powers within US territorial waters. Probable cause? Forget it. The Coast Guard can randomly stop boaters anywhere for so-called safety checks, searches and vessel documentation inspections.

It's long past time that government agencies were properly relegated to operating within the parameters of their proper constitutional limits.

I'm not holding my breath.

Best
Doc

Click to expand...

In total agreement.

The legal argument may break on possession of property. In Courts the Federal government owns all properties within it's borders.

Even though you may have a Warranty Deed to the property, in actual Court arguments you are only renting the property, and therefore must pay a rental fee, called property tax.

Even under Land Patents, which many have argued are mini fiefdoms, they have lost and must pay the rental fee/taxes.

And as such, the only property that is yours/private is the dwelling, aside from a mortgage. And it should be noted that in a lot of mortgages the outstanding balance can be called due and payable at any time.

Seeing that the government actually owns the land, all land with in it's borders, agents acting on their behalf, are free to do what they will, on the land.

It is also the reason agents acting on behalf of the state need a warrant to enter a dwelling.

While it is bad policy to call a note due while the payments are being made. So too is it bad policy to take free range on property where there is a Warranty Deed in place, by the agents of the state.

It should be noted that persons not agents of the state do not have that free range. All "private property" in the state of MS is posted land.

In legal matters one may extend their "privacy rights" by fencing and gates. It is my understanding so long as you have a fence and gate, local police, at least must have a warrant to breech.

Game Wardens in MS have much more extensive powers than state and local police.

Just shoot the damn thing and deny seeing it,just target practicing.

I believe we are all being monitored and categorized to some degree by the government.

Bambi Gestapo ...

NO TRESPASS

ALL AREA BEYOND THIS SIGN IS A FREE FIRE TRAINING ZONE.

Gradma Sez-
Taking the family, CHILDREN INCLUDED, out for some nude sunbathing some sunny day would CONSIDERABLY complicate the “state‘s claim to come photograph you on your private property. Or invite some nudists for a one time picnic on your land, informing them about it.
Upon later finding the camera later, you can turn the photos over to a lawyer, ask if it is recorded the names of everyone who would be and was allowed to see these photographs and the end disposition of the photographs, RECORDS, OFFICIAL RECORDS, the government hates opening records on their illegal activity. They may be allowed on the property but ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COVERTLY, CREATE PORN PHOTOS, (you and the wife “making love“ in the hay) and/or ESPECIALLY CHILD PORN ON YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY! Now THAT would gain some traction and news coverage, and public attention in court!

Get the enabling, open fields “law” CHANGED!
Reasonable probable cause, signed off by a judge, MUST be prerequisite to this government action and required before launching such an invasion of privacy.

Pull the SD card out, DoD wipe it with something like Darik's Boot and Nuke, then format it to something like EXT4 and stick it back in the camera. The camera will not understand the format and will not use the card, so no images will be saved.

On the other hand, I would LOVE to know the make and model of camera used and what the "antenna" is there for (I'm thinking that it could be WiFi access so that they can remotely check on them without having to get too close). If that is the case, then you should be able to tell when they are in the area as they will have to pull up an extra AP (Access Point) for the unit to tie into, and when that happens, then you can even find out what their AP name is and start to have fun with that part of their system. I'm willing to bet that ALL of that group's cameras use tie into the same AP. If that is the case, then as soon as the AP's SSID is found, then someone can wardrive around and find ALL of the other cameras by spoofing that AP and watching for connections.

Sounds like the time for some homework...

Loup

LoupGarou said:

Pull the SD card out, DoD wipe it with something like Darik's Boot and Nuke, then format it to something like EXT4 and stick it back in the camera. The camera will not understand the format and will not use the card, so no images will be saved.

On the other hand, I would LOVE to know the make and model of camera used and what the "antenna" is there for (I'm thinking that it could be WiFi access so that they can remotely check on them without having to get too close). If that is the case, then you should be able to tell when they are in the area as they will have to pull up an extra AP (Access Point) for the unit to tie into, and when that happens, then you can even find out what their AP name is and start to have fun with that part of their system. I'm willing to bet that ALL of that group's cameras use tie into the same AP. If that is the case, then as soon as the AP's SSID is found, then someone can wardrive around and find ALL of the other cameras by spoofing that AP and watching for connections.

Sounds like the time for some homework...

Loup

Click to expand...

Given that there seems to be no constraint on the gov in putting the thing there in the first place, I would suspect that opening it up and wiping the storage would be some kind of felony.

And I'd bet that the antenna is there for the SIM card, rather than WiFi, so the camera can phone home even in low-coverage cell areas, and it's probably configured to make that call if anyone opens its case (at least, that's how I'd do it). The WiFi angle shouldn't be discounted though; as you say at least it would enable you to tell when they're around. I'd bet that if they have a WiFi setup, it's hardcoded into the system, so the camera will only talk to APs that have a specific encryption key. You'd have to not only spot when the AP is in the area, but Wireshark the traffic to get a sense of what kind of traffic it sends. There's no way the camera is actively talking, so the AP would have to send out some kind of "here I am" signal to wake up the camera, authenticate its credentials, and initiate a download of the images. If you can capture all of that, you might have a chance of interfering with the process, but I suspect the AP-camera traffic would all be encrypted, so the best you could manage (other than locating all the cameras in your area) would be to set up a secondary AP and constantly deauth the camera so it can't reliably talk to the AP. And if they managed to catch on to what you're doing, you'd be guilty of DoSing a government computer network.

Somebody had to do it -

LoupGarou said:

On the other hand, I would LOVE to know the make and model of camera used

Loup

Click to expand...

Loup, you know approximately what it is. You can buy LTE connected game cameras for under $200 at Walmart or Amazon. Always on, always communicating. Uses cheap cell phone plans. Here's one for $119, delivered tomorrow!

https://www.amazon.com/Moultrie-XA-6000-Cellular-Network-MCG-13479/dp/B0874DBXSY?ref_=ast_sto_dp

Unless you can sneak up on it from the back side, they know as soon as you walk up to it.

The Mountain said:

Game cameras without tags are illegal. If you find one, cut it off the tree, take it home and report it to the wildlife department immediately. Once you find one, sweep the property regularly, cut the cameras down when you find them and keep reporting them. If it's the wildlife department putting them up, they'll get tired of having to take them back all the time and either stop or tell you to your face that you have to leave them alone when you find them, at which point you can go to the local news and tell them all about how the government is forcing you to let them spy on you.

Click to expand...

I agree, except I'd take them to an attorney for safekeeping.

Dennis Olson said:

I agree, except I'd take them to an attorney for safekeeping.

Click to expand...

Technically untagged cameras are supposed to be turned over to wildlife so they can find out who the camera belongs to. I was suggesting treating the camera like you didn't know who it belonged to.

They are easy enough to find with NV.

The IR flash jumps out at you.

There is one amendment that is missing from the constitution.
The one detailing the penalties for doing(or passing)unconstitutional acts.

Death seems fitting.....


Southside

The Mountain said:

Given that there seems to be no constraint on the gov in putting the thing there in the first place, I would suspect that opening it up and wiping the storage would be some kind of felony.

And I'd bet that the antenna is there for the SIM card, rather than WiFi, so the camera can phone home even in low-coverage cell areas, and it's probably configured to make that call if anyone opens its case (at least, that's how I'd do it). The WiFi angle shouldn't be discounted though; as you say at least it would enable you to tell when they're around. I'd bet that if they have a WiFi setup, it's hardcoded into the system, so the camera will only talk to APs that have a specific encryption key. You'd have to not only spot when the AP is in the area, but Wireshark the traffic to get a sense of what kind of traffic it sends. There's no way the camera is actively talking, so the AP would have to send out some kind of "here I am" signal to wake up the camera, authenticate its credentials, and initiate a download of the images. If you can capture all of that, you might have a chance of interfering with the process, but I suspect the AP-camera traffic would all be encrypted, so the best you could manage (other than locating all the cameras in your area) would be to set up a secondary AP and constantly deauth the camera so it can't reliably talk to the AP. And if they managed to catch on to what you're doing, you'd be guilty of DoSing a government computer network.

Click to expand...

You don't need Wireshark running constantly anymore. There are minions for that now...

Pwnagotchi: Deep Reinforcement Learning for WiFi pwning!

Click to expand...

Pwnagotchi is an A2C-based “AI” powered by bettercap and running on a Raspberry Pi Zero W that learns from its surrounding WiFi environment in order to maximize the crackable WPA key material it captures (either through passive sniffing or by performing deauthentication and association attacks). This material is collected on disk as PCAP files containing any form of handshake supported by hashcat, including full and half WPA handshakes as well as PMKIDs.

Learn more about the project and how it started on the author’s blog.

Click to expand...

Two or three of these bad boys will work together with their own built in AI and make QUICK work of any WiFi...

Loup

This Is why game wardens are involved in drug raids in rural areas in Texas. They can bypass the the warrant requirement under game laws. Also border patrol can go on property except for going inside a house from what i was told. I did read the actual legality years ago for border patrol. Don't remember all the specifics though. not surprised by any of this. Also tax and appraisal districts use satellite images for tax purposes to see if any changes have been done to the property.

ArisenCarcass said:

I almost went to work for Fish and Wildlife.
They kept saying that they could go on anyone's land for any reason, and I kept asking about the Constitutionality of such practice......Now I see that it's probably why I didn't get the job.
It's almost like they were catering to stalkers and bad actors.

I don't care that SCOTUS gave the OK, this "Open Fields" stuff (law? act?) is BS.
There needs to be recourse for when SCOTUS messes up (like US v. Miller, 1939 which cemented NFA as law in one of SCOTUS' largest blunders)

Click to expand...

There is one... but so far not enough think its the "right" time yet

LoupGarou said:

You don't need Wireshark running constantly anymore. There are minions for that now...
pwnagotchi.ai

Two or three of these bad boys will work together with their own built in AI and make QUICK work of any WiFi...
Loup

Click to expand...

How is it I never heard about Pwnagotchi before?? I've got to get out more.
Thanks, Loup. You're always a source of new enlightment!

LoupGarou said:

You don't need Wireshark running constantly anymore. There are minions for that now...

Pwnagotchi - Deep Reinforcement Learning instrumenting bettercap for WiFi pwning.

pwnagotchi.ai

Two or three of these bad boys will work together with their own built in AI and make QUICK work of any WiFi...

Loup

Click to expand...

Neat tool. I should check to see if it's included in Kali Linux yet. Probably overkill in this case. I would guess you'd need maybe 5-10 minutes of Wireshark, mainly to capture how the AP talks to the camera to wake it up, and see what other things you can catch. Rather than try to break their encryption, since that would be an even uglier hacking charge, I'd just want to see if there's anything I can do to prevent the camera from being able to communicate effectively. Breaking the encryption and shutting it off or changing it would be obviously the work of a hacker. Preventing the camera from being able to connect to the AP by constantly deauthing it could potentially be attributable to a bad network connection.

Move the large beehive and put it on top of the box holding the game camera.

LoupGarou said:

Pull the SD card out, DoD wipe it with something like Darik's Boot and Nuke, then format it to something like EXT4 and stick it back in the camera. The camera will not understand the format and will not use the card, so no images will be saved.

On the other hand, I would LOVE to know the make and model of camera used and what the "antenna" is there for (I'm thinking that it could be WiFi access so that they can remotely check on them without having to get too close). If that is the case, then you should be able to tell when they are in the area as they will have to pull up an extra AP (Access Point) for the unit to tie into, and when that happens, then you can even find out what their AP name is and start to have fun with that part of their system. I'm willing to bet that ALL of that group's cameras use tie into the same AP. If that is the case, then as soon as the AP's SSID is found, then someone can wardrive around and find ALL of the other cameras by spoofing that AP and watching for connections.

Sounds like the time for some homework...

Loup

Click to expand...

They're cell camera's, sends a pic in a text when it takes a pic.

And if you find a camera on your property, its yours. Especially untagged.

Tagged camera's I'm not certain what would happen if you remove them and kept them as your own. I would guess that unless a warrant was involved, they'd be your cameras too!