Recycling

[Parkbandit]

I just saw the strangest thing... a beat up pick up truck going through our neighborhood, taking the aluminum cans for recycling. Made me wonder.. is it legal? Once you put trash out at the curb, you lose all claim to it. I suppose the recycling vendor has a contract with the city or something.. but I wonder if it's illegal to do that.

It was funny watching though.. they were definitely operating as if it was illegal.

[Gan]

I dont think its illegal as in the taking of 'trash' from the curb being theft of your property.

It could be argued from a city's perspective if the cans are in a city recycle receptacle. OR if there is a city ordinance prohibiting such action.

We have those guys here in Houston too. They usually run at night.

[Stanley Burrell]

Go outside and ask them what they're doing. If they give you any lip, tell them you're part of the R-TEAM and should go to Canada for their socialized medicinals.

[Mabus]

I just saw the strangest thing... a beat up pick up truck going through our neighborhood, taking the aluminum cans for recycling. Made me wonder.. is it legal? Once you put trash out at the curb, you lose all claim to it. I suppose the recycling vendor has a contract with the city or something.. but I wonder if it's illegal to do that.

It was funny watching though.. they were definitely operating as if it was illegal.
It varies by locale. In my city it is illegal to remove anything from the tree lawn that was put out as trash or for recycling. Most cities that have recycling as part of trash pickup have ordinances dealing with theft of recyclables from trash.

It never bothered me that personally that people would gather items from the trash, as long as they did not make a mess.

[fallenSaint]

Yea I dunno if its illegal in my area but as long as they dont mess up my yard I don't care. I know many a time when large furniture winds up at the curb my hopes are someone will take it so I dont have to pay the extra fee for trashing it.

[crb]

not wholly related... but...

So at the recycling center I see lazy ass fat americans who will drive between the bins. So like, they pull up next to the newspaper dumpster, put their newspaper in. Get in their car, drive 10 feet, pull up to the glass dumpster, put their glass in, get in their car, drive 10 feet, pull to the plastic dumpster, put their plastic in.

1. These people are lazy and need more exercise.

2. I'm guessing if they're recycling they probably care a little bit about the environment, leaving their car running and or driving those little bits probably isn't a good thing then huh?

Then it is amazing how many people are illiterate in this country. No, don't put cereal boxes in the corrugated cardboard dumpster, it isn't the same thing, there is a big flipping sign. But people don't read.

[Sean of the Thread]

I see that happen around here a lot. Scrapping is good money I guess. The guy that fixed my sliding glass door said the aluminum framing would sell .75 cents a lb at the scrapper.

[Kembal]

Price of most metals is skyrocketing. Not surprising that it's occurring.

Actually betting it's not legal, because of the potential for identity theft in general if someone's rummaging through your trash.

[BigWorm]

Price of most metals is skyrocketing. Not surprising that it's occurring.

Actually betting it's not legal, because of the potential for identity theft in general if someone's rummaging through your trash.

If its in the trash, is fair game. You've given up any expectation of privacy by disposing of it.

[Trouble]

If its in the trash, is fair game. You've given up any expectation of privacy by disposing of it.

I think in VA it's still considered private property if it's in a privately-owned (either by the trash co or the homeowner) trash receptable. I could be mistaken.

[Warriorbird]

It varies greatly by location.

[Ashliana]

Pretty sure that in the US, things left out on the roadside for pickup are considered "abandoned property" and have no special legal protection, according to a Supreme Court ruling. If anyone has any interest in it, I'll dig up the case later tonight.

[CrystalTears]

Pretty sure that in the US, things left out on the roadside for pickup are considered "abandoned property" and have no special legal protection, according to a Supreme Court ruling. If anyone has any interest in it, I'll dig up the case later tonight.
However...


It varies greatly by location.
:yeahthat:

[CrystalTears]

Um.. Okay? Federal precedents apply anywhere, seeing as how they're the highest court in the land. I was talking about a specific area--that is, the US--compared to the world. In general, as far as the US is concerned, roadside-left trash is abandoned property and up for grabs.

Okay I'll rephrase.

It varies greatly by state.

[Warriorbird]

There can be city and county ordinances that they're violating too. It also can be an issue of precisely "where" it has been left and in what sort of container.

(there was a totally geeky discussion of this in law school)

[Ashliana]

Anyway,
California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.


no warrant was necessary to search the trash because Greenwood had no reasonable expectation of privacy in it.


It is possible for states to provide their citizens with a higher level of privacy than the U.S. Constitution. Greenwood 486 U.S. at 43. At least five state supreme courts have held that their state constitution prohibits search of garbage without a warrant:
California. People v. Krivda, 486 P.2d 1262 (Calif. 1971), vacated and remanded, 409 U.S. 33 (1972), reaff'd, 504 P.2d 457 (1973), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 919 (1973).
Hawaii. State v. Tanaka, 701 P.2d 1274 (Haw. 1985).
New Jersey. State v. Hempele, 576 A.2d 793 (N.J. 1990).
Washington. State v. Boland, 800 P.2d 1112 (Wash. 1990).
Vermont. State v. Morris, 680 A.2d 90 (Vt. 1996).

[CrystalTears]

What non-comment? You made an asinine post as though I was talking about the world which you deleted.

They'll make exceptions for law enforcement and won't contest it, but it doesn't mean that anyone can go through someone else's trash.

[Warriorbird]

To distinguish... there's a considered difference between the police and somebody looking for profit in many cases.

[Ashliana]

What non-comment? You made an asinine post as though I was talking about the world which you deleted.

They'll make exceptions for law enforcement and won't contest it, but it doesn't mean that anyone can go through someone else's trash.

Pointing out that "it varies greatly by location" means nothing when I had already specified that I wasn't making blanket statements. My original statement was and is true. It does need more clarification, which is why I did so, state to state. I found your post asinine and I called it as such.

The Supreme Court's opinion does not mean that only police are exempt--they ruled that you have no Federally recognized expectation of privacy regarding your trash. Provided your state or local government doesn't prohibit it, I could track you down and look through your garbage right now.

[Warriorbird]

it varies greatly by location


Provided your state or local government doesn't prohibit it

Notice the connection there? No reason to get heated at anybody. My law professor mocked me for having pulled up Greenwood in the middle of class on Lexis. Only reason I know.

[Ashliana]

Notice the connection there? No reason to get heated at anybody. My law professor mocked me for having pulled up Greenwood in the middle of class on Lexis. Only reason I know.

At what point did I ever deny that it varies by location? I provided evidence that supports this. The way she posted that was annoying. That's all.

[g++]

I could track you down and look through your garbage right now.

I could go tell old man Jenkins that violent pony rustlers are on the loose and then tie his pony to my trash. Then you will come to look through my trash and Jenkins will shoot you and Ill use you to make chili that I will subsequently feed to Scott Tederman.

[CrystalTears]

At what point did I ever deny that it varies by location? I provided evidence that supports this. The way she posted that was annoying. That's all.
There was nothing wrong with your original statement. HOWEVER, there are state and county mandates that prohibit someone from going through another person's trash. I was eliminating the blanket statement. You never stated such, and then followed up with that you were talking about the US. Sorry if that made no sense to me which is why I responded to it.

I just don't appreciate someone deleting posts and comments in their posts after already have been responded to. But that's what I get for not quoting.

Go ahead and go through my trash right now. It's still on my property. I'll be so happy to get you arrested for trespassing.

[Ashliana]

I know you're trying to be funny, but that actually depends.

If I'm not on your property--you have absolutely no right to do anything to me. If you have it on your curb--city property--you have no authority to tell me to do anything.

You also can't shoot people that DO come on your property, unless they've given you reason to believe your life is in danger. Even if the use of force is justified--say, the other person is armed--you're supposed to use an appropriate amount of force.

If someone breaks in your house and is wielding a stick or a club, and you shoot them in the face, it's considered excessive force and you can be charged for murder.

[Ashliana]

I just don't appreciate someone deleting posts and comments in their posts after already have been responded to. But that's what I get for not quoting.


Believe it or not, you posted while I was editing them out. I didn't edit them "after the fact"--at least from my perspective.

[g++]

If I'm not on your property--you have absolutely no right to do anything to me. If you have it on your curb--city property--you have no authority to tell me to do anything.

You also can't shoot people that DO come on your property, unless they've given you reason to believe your life is in danger. Even if the use of force is justified--say, the other person is armed--you're supposed to use an appropriate amount of force.

If someone breaks in your house and is wielding a stick or a club, and you shoot them in the face, it's considered excessive force and you can be charged for murder.

Im well aware of that, Im just giving a friendly warning to my neighbor Jenkins that there are violent pony rustlers in town and theres not a damn thing you can do to stop me.

[Parkbandit]

At what point did I ever deny that it varies by location? I provided evidence that supports this. The way she posted that was annoying. That's all.

Probably when you posted this.. then realized how dumb it was so you promptly deleted it 5 minutes later after being called out on it.


Um.. Okay? Federal precedents apply anywhere, seeing as how they're the highest court in the land. I was talking about a specific area--that is, the US--compared to the world. In general, as far as the US is concerned, roadside-left trash is abandoned property and up for grabs.

[Parkbandit]

If someone breaks in your house and is wielding a stick or a club, and you shoot them in the face, it's considered excessive force and you can be charged for murder.

You are all sorts of stupid. If someone breaks into my house and is carrying a popsicle stick, I am within my rights in Florida to use deadly force if I feel like I am being threatened. Someone in my house that I didn't invite is a threat in itself.

[Ashliana]

Probably when you posted this.. then realized how dumb it was so you promptly deleted it 5 minutes later after being called out on it.

Again, as I posted after that, what I said was and still is true, but it did need clarification, which is why I posted the case information as I said I would in my first post.

It is still a federal precedent--you can't be charged in a federal court for that action. A state or local government may prohibit it and prosecute it as such. I did not deny that it couldn't be different in each area, only that the federal government is uniform on the issue.

[TheEschaton]

There is no expectation of privacy in trash in re: criminal evidence/police searches. However, local ordinances can and do create that expectation in re: commercial ventures.

If I find a knife in the garbage which ties you to a murder, that's legal. If I find and take that same knife to the scrapper, that might be against a local law.

[Parkbandit]

Again, as I posted after that, what I said was and still is true, but it did need clarification, which is why I posted the case information as I said I would in my first post.

It is still a federal precedent--you can't be charged in a federal court for that action. A state or local government may prohibit it and prosecute it as such. I did not deny that it couldn't be different in each area, only that the federal government is uniform on the issue.


Do you even read what you post before you hit the submit key? I've gone ahead and quoted this.. so don't bother deleting it.

[Ashliana]

You are all sorts of stupid. If someone breaks into my house and is carrying a popsicle stick, I am within my rights in Florida to use deadly force if I feel like I am being threatened. Someone in my house that I didn't invite is a threat in itself.

The difference between you and I, apparently, "stupid," is that I back up what I'm saying. The proof of your claim is where, exactly?

[Parkbandit]

The difference between you and I, apparently, "stupid," is that I back up what I'm saying. The proof of your claim is where, exactly?


I realize you are the next up and coming Tsa'ah.. believing that because you have a PhD in Google that you must obviously be brilliant.

If you need proof of Florida laws pertaining to guns, use that PhD and look for it. It's there. Hell, feel free to look up on this message board, since we've discussed it in detail.

[CrystalTears]

The difference between you and I, apparently, "stupid," is that I back up what I'm saying. The proof of your claim is where, exactly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

It explains the "stand your ground" legislation.

[Parkbandit]

Oh.. and just for chuckles.. this just came over the wire:

A Harris County grand jury decided today that Joe Horn should not be charged with a crime for shooting two suspected burglars he confronted outside his neighbor's home in Pasadena last fall.

The decision to clear Horn of wrongdoing came two weeks after the grand jury began considering evidence in the case, including Horn's testimony last week.

Horn, a 62-year-old retiree, became the focus of an intense public debate after the Nov. 14 shootings. Many supporters praised him as a hero for using deadly force to protect property, while others dismissed him as a killer who should have heeded a 911 operator's instructions to stay in his house and wait for police.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5864151.html

[Gan]

If its in the trash, is fair game. You've given up any expectation of privacy by disposing of it.

Winner.

[Celephais]

Lexis.
Speaking of... if someone parks their Lexus on the side of the road, can I just assume they've "Abandoned it" and drive off? I mean... it is on the side of the road... that's where people put trash.

[Gan]

Oh.. and just for chuckles.. this just came over the wire:

A Harris County grand jury decided today that Joe Horn should not be charged with a crime for shooting two suspected burglars he confronted outside his neighbor's home in Pasadena last fall.

The decision to clear Horn of wrongdoing came two weeks after the grand jury began considering evidence in the case, including Horn's testimony last week.

Horn, a 62-year-old retiree, became the focus of an intense public debate after the Nov. 14 shootings. Many supporters praised him as a hero for using deadly force to protect property, while others dismissed him as a killer who should have heeded a 911 operator's instructions to stay in his house and wait for police.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5864151.html


HAHA.. Bitch, I was getting ready to find that thread and update it.

Imagine that. :yes:

[Ashliana]

I realize you are the next up and coming Tsa'ah.. believing that because you have a PhD in Google that you must obviously be brilliant.

If you need proof of Florida laws pertaining to guns, use that PhD and look for it. It's there. Hell, feel free to look up on this message board, since we've discussed it in detail.

You can resort to ad hominem attacks as you please, but there's a difference between "finding something on google" and actually bothering to source your statements, rather than pulling them out of your ass.

[Parkbandit]

HAHA.. Bitch, I was getting ready to find that thread and update it.

Imagine that. :yes:


Two less scumbags polluting up the Earth. Looks like a Win/Win in my book.

[Parkbandit]

You can resort to ad hominem attacks as you please, but there's a difference between "finding something on google" and actually bothering to source your statements, rather than pulling them out of your ass.


Did you bother sourcing my ad hominem attack.. because I'm not sure it would be considered such. Also, here's a bit of advice toots.. instead of crying "WAA, SOURCE, SOURCE, SOURCE!!" maybe you should go ahead and look the shit up and tell me where I was wrong? I know this will come as a complete shock to someone as transparent as you.. but people DO know things without having to look up everything they post.

I'll await your response, with at least 3 cross referenced sources.

[Gan]

When did the short bus drop off the new idiot?

[Ashliana]

Did you bother sourcing my ad hominem attack.. because I'm not sure it would be considered such. Also, here's a bit of advice toots.. instead of crying "WAA, SOURCE, SOURCE, SOURCE!!" maybe you should go ahead and look the shit up and tell me where I was wrong? I know this will come as a complete shock to someone as transparent as you.. but people DO know things without having to look up everything they post.

I'll await your response, with at least 3 cross referenced sources.

Congratulations on apparently being unable to differentiate between a contentious statement and a statement of common knowledge.

[g++]

Again, as I posted after that, what I said was and still is true, but it did need clarification, which is why I posted the case information as I said I would in my first post.

It is still a federal precedent--you can't be charged in a federal court for that action. A state or local government may prohibit it and prosecute it as such. I did not deny that it couldn't be different in each area, only that the federal government is uniform on the issue.

Isnt it great that a proponent for trash being common property is being put through the grinder by a post they trashed that was salvaged by members supporting state privacy rights.

[Ashliana]

Isnt it great that a proponent for trash being common property is being put through the grinder by a post they trashed that was salvaged by members supporting state privacy rights.

Again--I've stated this three times now--as far as the federal government is concerned, your trash is up for grabs. States and local governments can change the rules in their own, smaller areas, but the federal government will have no part in its enforcement. I'm the one who stated so. :rolleyes:

[g++]

Again--I've stated this three times now--as far as the federal government is concerned, your trash is up for grabs. States and local governments can change the rules in their own, smaller areas, but the federal government will have no part in its enforcement. I'm the one who stated so. :rolleyes:

I really dont care about the issue, I keep my trash on the floor to make sure no one steals it. Its the back and forth that makes this thread bearable.

[Warriorbird]

When would you ever have a case about going through trash in a federal court unless it was something appealed up to the Supreme? Probably never.

[Celephais]

I know my question seemed like a joke, but seriously what's the difference between someone taking trash on the sidewalk and your car? I have a reasonable expectation that my car will be there tomorrow, why can't I have the same reasonable expectation that my trash will be picked up by my hired trash services.

If I hire a towing company to tow my car, that doesn't mean someone else can come steal it...

I'm not actually arguing this angle, just something that came to mind, that I would definatly argue if I either a) stole someones car from the sidewalk, or b) had incriminating evidence about me stealing peoples cars taken from my trash.

[Warriorbird]

Yep. That was discussed in our class too.

[Gan]

Yep. That was discussed in our class too.

Thats not the question that was asked.

Yes, we know you're in lawschool. No need to pull a TheE and remind us... repeatedly.

[TheEschaton]

That, I imagine, has to do with abandonment. By throwing something in the garbage, a reasonable person would assume you are voluntarily and knowingly forfeiting your title, at which point someone could lay claim to it. To abandon a car, that normally is found on the street, you'd have to make a gesture that is culturally similar to putting something in the trash; a sign which said "free to the first taker" might work.

[Warriorbird]

Thanks, Gan. You're so civil! For an answer...

You'd get laughed out of the court. Just like you'd get laughed out of the court if you tried to defend a client who was rummaging through trash cans to get material for identity theft with Greenwood.

EDIT in response to TheE:

Yeah. A bunch of us got 'Reasonable Person' shirts made for a party.

[Mabus]

I thought I read something lately in my local paper, The Plain Dealer, dealing with this issue.

Willoughby Police Enforce Ordinance against Scavenging (http://www.cleveland.com/community/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/121412352239280.xml&coll=2&thispage=1).

[Celephais]

There was that craigslist hoax recently where that guy got his house ransacked because someone else posted "I'm giving away all my shit, just come and take it".

I'm going to start walking down the street putting "free to the first taker" signs on peoples cars.

[Warriorbird]

I dunno. If you did it in such a way that a "Reasonable Person" would think it was theirs for the taking you'd be the only one who'd go down for it.

[Mabus]

I just don't appreciate someone deleting posts and comments in their posts after already have been responded to. But that's what I get for not quoting.

Unless it is Daniel doing so to me, right? If I remember you had no problem with him editing a post.

Or to quote you:

Don't have an argument so all you have left is "OMG you changed your post after the fact!!!!111"?


He made a statement, found the information, then edited to include it. This happens here ALL the time. Get used to it, because it's not a slight against anyone. This isn't the officials where edits aren't allowed. Sometimes people go back more than 5 minutes later (like I just did OMFG I'M CHEATING!) just to reiterate or clarify a point.

[Ashliana]

Unless it is Daniel doing so to me, right? If I remember you had no problem with him editing a post.

Or to quote you:

Haha! Oh, the Internet and its lovable quality of accountability for the words one types.

[CrystalTears]

Unless it is Daniel doing so to me, right? If I remember you had no problem with him editing a post.

Or to quote you:
For the millionth time, he didn't do anything of the sort. The information was already there. What he edited was the quote in order to shorten it.

Here she deleted a post and comments from another after the fact. I don't have a problem with information added. I have a problem with it being removed once commented. They are not the same thing.

Look who has resorted to trolling...

BTW, that quote of mine with the "OMG" was because of you spending 2+ pages bitching about Daniel's edit time stamp. It was getting ridiculous. Thanks for taking it out of context to prove your non-existent point.

[Latrinsorm]

Ashliana, clearly, isn't even a FORMER semi-conservative. For shame!!!

[Warriorbird]

Mabus has taken his first steps into trolling! Soon he'll be a real PC member!

[Ashliana]

For the millionth time, he didn't do anything of the sort. The information was already there. What he edited was the quote in order to shorten it.

Here she deleted a post and comments from another after the fact. I don't have a problem with information added. I have a problem with it being removed once commented. They are not the same thing.

Look who has resorted to trolling...

BTW, that quote of mine with the "OMG" was because of you spending 2+ pages bitching about Daniel's edit time stamp. It was getting ridiculous. Thanks for taking it out of context to prove your non-existent point.


Really? Because what he said made you look like a hypocrite. I edited my comments within moments of posting them. I didn't go in "after the fact," "after you responded" to make myself look better. You responded to it as I was deleting it.

[Gan]

Really? Because what he said made you look like a hypocrite. I edited my comments within moments of posting them. I didn't go in "after the fact," "after you responded" to make myself look better. You responded to it as I was deleting it.

Sure you were.

Sure sure. A likely story. But do you have proof? Can you source this information?

Or is this more anecdotal evidence and generic statements to the contrary unsupported by any physical evidence?

[Ashliana]

Like I said--congratulations on apparently being incapable of differentiating between a contentious statement and a common knowledge one.

In this case, it's fairly contentious. She posted very quickly after I did, while I was in the process of very quickly altering my post, and then she accused me of editing it out "after" I saw her?

I can't prove that I didn't see her comment before I removed it. Don't believe me? Whatever--don't believe me.

[Mabus]

My apologies for the thread derail. I just had to point out that hypocritical show of indignation by CT.

I was...
...recycling an old thread.

;)

[Clove]

Um.. Okay? Federal precedents apply anywhere, seeing as how they're the highest court in the land. I was talking about a specific area--that is, the US--compared to the world. In general, as far as the US is concerned, roadside-left trash is abandoned property and up for grabs.

Again, as I posted after that, what I said was and still is true, but it did need clarification, which is why I posted the case information as I said I would in my first post.
Not really. Because....
If I find and take that same knife to the scrapper, that might be against a local law....as E pointed out local laws may restrict trash picking and Federal laws don't deny States (or lower) from restricting it. Your distinction is meaningless. Federal "precedent" is moot and ridiculous (please find me Federal cases that involve trash picking at all) because they don't limit lower authorities from legislating against the practice. You're tap-dancing and playing with semantics. You made a stupid statement. It's not the end of the world, it just is what it is. Not that I don't understand your reaction- I certainly wouldn't want to be found out saying something silly, or incorrect in a thread about the lawfulness of TRASH PICKING! ZOMG!!!!1!

[Ashliana]

Not really. Because.......as E pointed out local laws may restrict trash picking and Federal laws don't deny States (or lower) from restricting it. Your distinction is meaningless. Federal "precedent" is moot and ridiculous (please find me Federal cases that involve trash picking at all) because they don't limit lower authorities from legislating against the practice. You're tap-dancing and playing with semantics. You made a stupid statement. It's not the end of the world, it just is what it is. Not that I don't understand your reaction- I certainly wouldn't want to be found out saying something silly, or incorrect in a thread about the lawfulness of TRASH PICKING! ZOMG!!!!1!

Find you federal cases that involve trash picking? Okay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Greenwood

:P

I made an unclarified statement, which is why I went out of my way to clarify it, before anyone had said anything. She posted while I was writing it, and then said I was editting it in after-the-fact, which is not what I was doing.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

There's an old man in my neighborhood who collects the cans from the recycling bins on trash day. I stopped putting mine in the bin and just put them in a bag next to it each week.

[Clove]

Find you federal cases that involve trash picking? Okay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Greenwood

:P.I suppose it involves trash picking, but it's more about a right to privacy (similar to E's previous comment). I put my trash in my neighbor's barrels, just in case.

[TheEschaton]

Greenwood is about police searching for evidence. I'm pretty sure Cele was referring to commercial trash picking.

[Celephais]

Greenwood is about police searching for evidence. I'm pretty sure Cele was referring to commercial trash picking.
Me? No I'm more into the sport for trophy bums over my mantle.

http://photos22.flickr.com/34644519_53911d4af9.jpg

[Ashliana]

Greenwood is about police searching for evidence. I'm pretty sure Cele was referring to commercial trash picking.

Yes, but it addressed the underlying issue: you have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding your garbage.

[TheEschaton]

Yes, but it addressed the underlying issue: you have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding your garbage.

...from the police searching your garbage for evidence of a criminal act...

[Ashliana]

...from the police searching your garbage for evidence of a criminal act...

No. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy, thus the police searching for evidence was a non-issue.

[Ashliana]

Quoting Katz v. United States, the court concluded that "[w]hat a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection."

There's nothing in the decision that suggests that this narrowly applies only to the pursuit of crime by a police officer. They more broadly ruled that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, from a federal standpoint, to your garbage that you leave at the curb. States can provide expanded protection/rights of their own will.

[Clove]

States can provide expanded protection/rights of their own will.Which was pretty much the fucking point to begin with. In this country, the lawfullness of trash picking varies by location. Your distinction is moot for the purposes of the discussion.

[Gan]

LOL @ Ashliana getting into a law argument with TheE.

:popcorn:

[Parkbandit]

Googlexpert vs. Law student...

Who will win!? STAY TUNED!!

[Ashliana]

Which was pretty much the fucking point to begin with. In this country, the lawfullness of trash picking varies by location. Your distinction is moot for the purposes of the discussion.

Except that has nothing to do with what I was talking about? She implied that you only had no expectation of privacy from police, which is fallacious.


Googlexpert vs. Law student...

Who will win!? STAY TUNED!!

Not that it matters, since as a reactionary, you've already made up your mind, but I'm also a magical "law student" with access to Lexis and Westlaw.

[CrystalTears]

Except that has nothing to do with what I was talking about? She implied that you only had no expectation of privacy from police, which is fallacious.
I haven't responded to this thread in hours and you're still harping on about it?

I have NEVER spoken about privacy as this was NEVER about a privacy issue. It was about scavenging trash for profit.

[Clove]

Pretty sure that in the US, things left out on the roadside for pickup are considered "abandoned property" and have no special legal protection, according to a Supreme Court ruling. If anyone has any interest in it, I'll dig up the case later tonight.


Except that has nothing to do with what I was talking about? She implied that you only had no expectation of privacy from police, which is fallacious.Except that your statement "in the US, things left out on the roadside for pickup are considered 'abandoned property'" is incorrect at face value. Including the contingency "according to the Supreme Court" doesn't change the falseness of the statement at all. BECAUSE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE ALLOWED TO REGULATE AND RESTRICT IT AND THOSE AUTHORITIES ARE IN THE US. If the original discussion was about whether or not the Feds would come after you, your point wouldn't be pointless.

[TheEschaton]

There's nothing in the decision that suggests that this narrowly applies only to the pursuit of crime by a police officer. They more broadly ruled that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, from a federal standpoint, to your garbage that you leave at the curb. States can provide expanded protection/rights of their own will.

Did you read this quote correctly? It says you have no 4th Amendment rights in your trash. The 4th Amendment creates a right to not be unlawfully searched, and seized...it does NOT create the right to privacy, which derives from many diverse sources.

[Ashliana]

Did you read this quote correctly? It says you have no 4th Amendment rights in your trash. The 4th Amendment creates a right to not be unlawfully searched, and seized...it does NOT create the right to privacy, which derives from many diverse sources.

You're still not listening to what I'm saying. They ruled that you have no expectation of privacy in this case. That does not only apply to police.

[Clove]

Maybe they cover the 4th Amendment next year....

[Ashliana]

I haven't responded to this thread in hours and you're still harping on about it?

I have NEVER spoken about privacy as this was NEVER about a privacy issue. It was about scavenging trash for profit.

I am not "harping" about this. Someone brought it up, and I responded.


Except that your statement "in the US, things left out on the roadside for pickup are considered 'abandoned property'" is incorrect at face value. Including the contingency "according to the Supreme Court" doesn't change the falseness of the statement at all. BECAUSE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE ALLOWED TO REGULATE AND RESTRICT IT AND THOSE AUTHORITIES ARE IN THE US. If the original discussion was about whether or not the Feds would come after you, your point wouldn't be pointless.

Except that it's not incorrect, at face value. Nationwide, your garbage has no federally recognized right to privacy. Some random, individual state might afford you that right but if you're not going to bother doing the research for your own state's laws, you're much better off presuming that no expectation of privacy exists.

[Parkbandit]

Not that it matters, since as a reactionary, you've already made up your mind, but I'm also a magical "law student" with access to Lexis and Westlaw.

HAHAHAHHAHAAA.. that's fucking awesome.

[Ashliana]

HAHAHAHHAHAAA.. that's fucking awesome.

You mean how you ideologically "service" Rush Limbaugh with nearly every post you make? I agree.

[Ashliana]

Maybe they cover the 4th Amendment next year....

The fourth amendment protects individual citizens from federal government action, and the 14th protects individual citizens from the state. It does not protect individuals from other individuals.

That's up to federal and state laws. None of which exist at the federal level, and some of which do exist at the state level. Which we've been over several times now.

[TheEschaton]

There's nothing in the decision that suggests that this narrowly applies only to the pursuit of crime by a police officer. They more broadly ruled that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, from a federal standpoint, to your garbage that you leave at the curb. States can provide expanded protection/rights of their own will.


You're still not listening to what I'm saying. They ruled that you have no expectation of privacy in this case. That does not only apply to police.

Again, you're making the distinction at the wrong place. OF COURSE, John Q. Public can search your trash, FOR EVIDENCE OF A CRIME. You have no expectation of privacy in your trash IN REGARDS TO searches looking for criminal evidence.

HOWEVER, such an expectation of privacy can still exist in other situations - like commercial ventures. For example, I probably cannot (nor can the police) search through Brangelina's garbage looking for dirty undies to sell on eBay. They can probably sue you for a breach of privacy BECAUSE an expectation of privacy exists OUTSIDE the 4th, which is all Greenwood addresses.

And if we're tossing out cases: Griswold v. CT FTMFW.

[Clove]

Except that it's not incorrect, at face value.Except that it is because...

Nationwide, your garbage has no federally recognized right to privacy. Some random, individual state might afford you that right but if you're not going to bother doing the research for your own state's laws, you're much better off presuming that no expectation of privacy exists.... that's NOT what you originally stated.

For example, SCOTUS also deemed that eminent domain invoked for economic purposes was not unconstitutional. That doesn't make it legal in (throughout) the United States, since SCOTUS also stated that it was within the scope of States to limit.

You made a foolish statement that wasn't germane to the topic at hand.

Get back to studying.

[Warriorbird]

Law students get into arguments all the time.

Not that exciting.

[Deathravin]

You mean how you ideologically "service" Rush Limbaugh with nearly every post you make? I agree.

That made me happy in pants...

[Ashliana]

Except that it is because...
... that's NOT what you originally stated.

For example, SCOTUS also deemed that eminent domain invoked for economic purposes was not unconstitutional. That doesn't make it legal in (throughout) the United States, since SCOTUS also stated that it was within the scope of States to limit.

You made a foolish statement that wasn't germane to the topic at hand.

Get back to studying.

What I stated was and is correct. You have no federally recognized right or expectation to privacy regarding your garbage. What exactly is your point?

[Clove]

What I stated was and is correct. You have no federally recognized right or expectation to privacy regarding your garbage. What exactly is your point?That you didn't state that originally. It's a matter of record. You eventually came to that concept, but it isn't how you expressed yourself originally, and it's what initiated the criticism. You've been tap-dancing ever since. It will be alright.

[Ashliana]

Again, you're making the distinction at the wrong place. OF COURSE, John Q. Public can search your trash, FOR EVIDENCE OF A CRIME. You have no expectation of privacy in your trash IN REGARDS TO searches looking for criminal evidence.

HOWEVER, such an expectation of privacy can still exist in other situations - like commercial ventures. For example, I probably cannot (nor can the police) search through Brangelina's garbage looking for dirty undies to sell on eBay. They can probably sue you for a breach of privacy BECAUSE an expectation of privacy exists OUTSIDE the 4th, which is all Greenwood addresses.

And if we're tossing out cases: Griswold v. CT FTMFW.

An individual citizen doing such a thing would probably be charged under a similarly intended state law; the constitution provides no such protection or recognization towards any expectation of privacy where a private citizen is concerned, and definitely no such right where a law enforcement agent is concerned.

Griswold and Roe have established a right to privacy; but again, this doesn't apply to individual citizens in their own capacity, and they've ruled under the pursuit of evidence, as you mentioned, no protection exists afforded by the fourth amendment.

[Ashliana]

That you didn't state that originally. It's a matter of record. You eventually came to that concept, but it isn't how you expressed yourself originally, and it's what initiated the criticism. You've been tap-dancing ever since. It will be alright.

I didn't? What was my very first post in this thread?


Pretty sure that in the US, things left out on the roadside for pickup are considered "abandoned property" and have no special legal protection, according to a Supreme Court ruling. If anyone has any interest in it, I'll dig up the case later tonight.

Rather than my trying to so-called "tap-dance" around my statement, you're looking for holes to pick where none exist. I knew it needed clarification, which is why I shortly clarified it, right as Crystal was responding to me.

[Clove]

Rather than my trying to so-called "tap-dance" around my statement, you're looking for holes to pick where none exist. I knew it needed clarification, which is why I shortly clarified it, right as Crystal was responding to me.Pretty sure you'll be doing your future clients a disservice if you tell them that because the Feds don't protect an activity that it's legal in the United States.

You seem to be a little slow so I'll try again.

It's legal to own a firearm in the United States because it is Federally protected by the Constitution and no lower authority can legislate against it.

It isn't necessarily legal throughout the United States to trash pick. That the Feds don't protect it (from search and seizure) is a moot point.

[Ashliana]

Pretty sure you'll be doing your future clients a disservice if you tell them that because the Feds don't protect an activity that it's legal in the United States.

You seem to be a little slow so I'll try again.

It's legal to own a firearm in the United States because it is Federally protected by the Constitution and no lower authority can legislate against it.

It isn't necessarily legal throughout the United States to trash pick. That the Feds don't protect it (from search and seizure) is a moot point.

You seem to be very slow, so I'll repeat myself. My original statement was true. I realized it needed clarification, which is why I almost immediately did so.

It's the same as if I said "firearms are legal to own in the US" or "firearms aren't banned in the US."

You could go on to argue that yes, in some places, they are banned or heavily restricted, but the original statement holds true. It did need clarification, and I did so.

[Clove]

It's the same as if I said "firearms are legal to own in the US" or "firearms aren't banned in the US."

You could go on to argue that yes, in some places, they are banned or heavily restricted, but the original statement holds true. It did need clarification, and I did so.No you couldn't because it is not legal to ban ownership in the United States.

[Gan]

HAHAHAHHAHAAA.. that's fucking awesome.

x2

[Ashliana]

No you couldn't because it is not legal to ban ownership in the United States.

Prior to last month's decision, perhaps. But that is just an example.

[TheEschaton]

SCOTUS has only ever addressed, on a federal level, whether there exists an objective expectation of privacy in one's trash in regards to criminal searches. It ruled there isn't such an expectation. To extrapolate that to say there is NEVER, federally, an expectation of privacy in one's trash, is patently ridiculous, because SCOTUS HASN'T SAID THAT.

One can easily imagine a federal case against an identity thief trolling for SSNs in garbage, where the court could reasonably find an expectation of privacy for the victim, it's just that such a case has never arisen as far as I recall.

[Clove]

Prior to last month's decision, perhaps. But that is just an example.Your professors tolerate this kind of sloppy argument?

[Ashliana]

Your professors tolerate this kind of sloppy argument?

It's not a sloppy argument. It's another example of a case that needs clarification, but is technically true.

Absolutely everything I posted just now is true, even today, considering their decision.


It's the same as if I said "firearms are legal to own in the US" or "firearms aren't banned in the US."

You could go on to argue that yes, in some places, they are banned or heavily restricted, but the original statement holds true. It did need clarification, and I did so.

They are banned in some places. As in airports, federal/government buildings, etc. You assumed I was talking about entire swaths of areas, like DC. As an argument, as an example, it's the same. It's a statement that needs clarification; one that you're desperately trying to find fault with.

[Ashliana]

SCOTUS has only ever addressed, on a federal level, whether there exists an objective expectation of privacy in one's trash in regards to criminal searches. It ruled there isn't such an expectation. To extrapolate that to say there is NEVER, federally, an expectation of privacy in one's trash, is patently ridiculous, because SCOTUS HASN'T SAID THAT.

You're absolutely right. That is the only aspect they directly addressed. But considering that fact, and that the fourth amendment holds no meaning to the actions of an individual citizen, what is your point? Even if SCOTUS found a reasonable expectation of privacy in other cases, the constitution protects the people from its government, not the people from other people. That's the job of state, local and federal law; none of which exists at the federal level of which I'm aware, and some states/local governments which do enforce it.


One can easily imagine a federal case against an identity thief trolling for SSNs in garbage, where the court could reasonably find an expectation of privacy for the victim, it's just that such a case has never arisen as far as I recall.

Yes, but this still wouldn't be a fourth amendment or federal issue unless a federal law was being challenged in the first place. There still isn't a federal standard except the lack of an expectation of privacy in regards to criminal investigation.

[Clove]

They are banned in some places.Possession is banned, but not their ownership.

[Ashliana]

Possession is banned, but not their ownership.

Yes, you're right. I misspoke. Congratulations on poking a hole in the example argument I presented. Would you like me to make another for you to ignore?

[Clove]

Yes, you're right. I misspoke. Congratulations on poking a hole in the example argument I presented. Would you like me to make another for you to ignore?If you can manage to make a proper example, or argument.

[Ashliana]

If you can manage to make a proper example, or argument.

Except your objection had absolutely nothing to do with the point of providing an example? The point was that my original statement (unlike the example provided just now) does hold true, but needs the clarification I shortly thereafter gave it.

[TheEschaton]

What the fuck are we arguing about if you agree with my last post?

[Clove]

Except your objection had absolutely nothing to do with the point of providing an example?No, I'll still accept a proper example, or point regardless.

[Gan]

Yes, you're right. I misspoke. Congratulations on poking a hole in the example argument I presented. Would you like me to make another for you to ignore?

Something you should be intimately familiar with (poking holes in example arguments) (or editing them out).

[Gan]

What the fuck are we arguing about if you agree with my last post?

Says one would be attorney to another would be attorney.

:lol:

[Ashliana]

Something you should be intimately familiar with (poking holes in example arguments) (or editing them out).

The main difference being that you chose to ignore the argument and focused on the example, because you had nothing to use to counter the argument itself.

I edited my original post of my own accord before anyone had replied. CT responded while I was writing my clarification, which I said. If you don't believe me, that's fine. I don't give a shit, but it has absolutely no bearing on the argument itself.

[Parkbandit]

The main difference being that you chose to ignore the argument and focused on the example, because you had nothing to use to counter the argument itself.

I edited my original post of my own accord before anyone had replied. CT responded while I was writing my clarification, which I said. If you don't believe me, that's fine. I don't give a shit, but it has absolutely no bearing on the argument itself.


For someone who doesn't give a shit, you sure have been posting about it over and over again...

[Clove]

I don't give a shit, but it has absolutely no bearing on the argument itself.Not unlike how your argument has no bearing on the thread's discussion. Oh, and for the record it was my example. You took it and then fucked up. Kudos.

[Ashliana]

For someone who doesn't give a shit, you sure have been posting about it over and over again...

I don't care what you believe, but I'll certainly respond each and every time you try to bring it up.


Not unlike how your argument has no bearing on the thread's discussion. Oh, and for the record it was my example. You took it and then fucked up. Kudos.

Reading comprehension. I was taling about my example of a situation in which a blanket statement can be true but needs clarification.

[Clove]

Reading comprehension. I was taling about my example of a situation in which a blanket statement can be true but needs clarification.And you fucked that up too.

[CrystalTears]

Let's just assume that all blanket statements need clarification... because they do. If you don't clarify the blanket statement immediately after the fact, it will be questioned, whether you intend to elaborate on your own or not.

[Ashliana]

And you fucked that up too.

Sorry, but what you're saying and reality aren't agreeing with each other.

[Ashliana]

Let's just assume that all blanket statements need clarification... because they do. If you don't clarify the blanket statement immediately after the fact, it will be questioned, whether you intend to elaborate on your own or not.

Which is why I was doing so? I didn't clarify based on anyone's response, unlike what you implied. I've explained this a hundred times. Don't believe me? That's your perogative.

[Clove]

Sorry, but what you're saying and reality aren't agreeing with each other.The reality is, you made an incorrect statement. Then you used an incorrect example (originally used to illustrate the difference between a truthful blanket statement and a false one).

Worst lawyer ever.

[Ashliana]

The reality is, you made an incorrect statement. Then you used an incorrect example (originally used to illustrate the difference between a truthful blanket statement and a false one).

Worst lawyer ever.

See, just because you say something is so doesn't make it so. My original statement needed clarification, but was not incorrect. So I'll say once more: reading comprehension.

[Clove]

Sorry, but what you're saying and reality aren't agreeing with each other.


See, just because you say something is so doesn't make it so. My original statement needed clarification, but was not incorrect.Exactly. Keep telling yourself that.

[Ashliana]

Exactly. Keep telling yourself that.

You're very good at sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala~," something your type is well known for. Well done.. I suppose.

[Clove]

You're very good at sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala~," something your type is well known for. Well done.. I suppose.So far that's all you've done. Despite being presented with reasoning your responses have amounted to "Nuh uh!". Something you're becoming well known for.

[CrystalTears]

You're very good at sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala~," something your type is well known for. Well done.. I suppose.
Uh, what exactly is his "type"?

[Ashliana]

So far that's all you've done. Despite being presented with reasoning your responses have amounted to "Nuh uh!". Something you're becoming well known for.

Actually, my response has been: "I am (x), and if you disagree, that's fine. I don't care."

You can disagree. While I think you're wrong, you're welcome to disagree. Yet you continue to harp on about it.

[BigWorm]

Uh, what exactly is his "type"?

Former Semi-Conservative?

[Ashliana]

Uh, what exactly is his "type"?

He's a big boy, Crystal. If he didn't know what I meant, let him ask.

[Danical]

Uh, what exactly is his "type"?

^

Also, isn't it legal in Florida to gun down someone for boosting your car? I could have sworn I heard/read something along those lines.

[Clove]

^

Also, isn't it legal in Florida to gun down someone for boosting your car? I could have sworn I heard/read something along those lines.It's legal to use a firearm for self-defense from a vehicle. Simply put if someone approaches your car in a threatening manner and you reasonably feel your life is threatened you can pop a cap in them. It was Florida's response to car jacking. Amazingly car jacking statistics plummeted after the legislation was put in place.

[CrystalTears]

He's a big boy, Crystal. If he didn't know what I meant, let him ask.
I'M asking. Answer ME then.

[Ashliana]

I'M asking. Answer ME then.

Well, that's a pity, then, because it was directed at him. I guess you're going to have to live with my unclarified statement if you couldn't derive my meaning from the past few pages.