Talk:Open fields doctrine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
 |
This article may be too technical for a general audience. Please help improve this article by providing more context and better explanations of technical details to make it more accessible, without removing technical details. |
Though interesting, this article looks like it was pulled wholesale from some other source. A quick Google shows another page with the same information (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Open-fields-doctrine), but it appears to have gleaned its information from Wikipedia rather than vice versa. I'm hesitant to call this a copyvio problem since I see nothing it was taken from, but at the very least, it needs to be wikified. --Xanzzibar 01:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Redirect
The reasonable expectation of privacy test is one of the pillars of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. It should be titled as its own article instead of being a redirect to open fields. There are other areas outside of open fields where there isn't a REP, like with evidence found in public, trash, pen registers, aerial surveillance, field tests, canine sniffs, etc.--Whitenoise101 09:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Telecommunications
This page is listed in the category 'Privacy of telecommunications.' I don't really see how this relates to telecommunications. I left the category in for now in case I just missed the connection but am suggesting it be removed. --AndrewBuck 14:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC) The concept of expectation of privacy can be interpeted as right to privacy. (r.stalnaker)
[edit] Cleanup
This article reads like soemthing written by a lawyer for another lawyer. I'd take a hack at this but I think it really needs somebody with an understanding of the subject matter to express this for a more general audience. -- Whpq 21:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Ug. Can't agree with that. I'd hope a lawyer would do a better job than putting in circular statements like "Under this “new” analysis of the Fourth Amendment, privacy expectations deemed unreasonable by society cannot be validated by any steps taken by the defendant to shield the area from view." which basically boils down to "if a court deems something per se unreasonable, then it's per se unreasonable." I changed a few areas in the article, but I'm not sure if I actually improved it much. It probably needs an entirely new re-write and I'm not up to it at the moment. - 24.20.247.221 (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Recommendation for redirect to Fourth Amendment
I believe the most logical and beneficial place to access this information is within the Fourth Amendment artical. Specifically, I suggest that "open fields doctrine" be redirected there so it can be viewed in the subsection on "Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement for searches." There, the open fields doctrine can be properly considered in context with other exceptions (e.g., the automobile and plain view exceptions) which would make understanding the concepts underlying the doctrine more accessible for everyone. Of course, I am open to discussion about the redirect, please speak up if you don't think that is a good idea. Mr. schmitty 23:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. It's a subcategory of reasonable expectation of privacy, which itself is a subcategory of the Fourth Amendment. --Whitenoise101 02:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Syntax/grammar?
"== Distinguishing open fields from curtilage ==
While open fields are not be protected by the Fourth Amendment, the curtilage, or outdoor area..."
