Is this actionable

[GD10]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Arizona


I have been subjected to ongoing harassment by the HOA where I live. They like to use various Govt. agencies and departments to harass owners.

One HOA newsletter advocated the practice of making constant complaints to such areas of Govt. against owners the reader would consider undesirable, newsletter stated target would move due to this continued practice.

I have ZERO RECORD, NEVER BEEN ARRESTED.

Constant harassment of HOA via Phx Neighborhood Services Dept.


I Been dealing with same person (nice guy) from this Dept. I have told him what HOA is doing in past, several times.

Now he has been directed to take photos of rear yard over back wall.

Stated my objection, this was violation of the 4th Amend and educated him about the "Plain View Doctrine," Boyd v. US and US v. Dunn.

Asked him if ever smelled anything chemical, organic, or decaying organic in nature? "NO"

Ever seen bugs, vermin? "NO"

If he was walking down street was there ANYTHING that would lead him to believe that my yard was any different from any other yard. His answer "Nothing"

I informed him he needed to get a letter from his administrator and Judge in his department that stated they will indemnify him for his actions taken under their direction for his own protection. Due to the information I just explained to him and how he answered my questions.

Then informed him his actions we not within the "Plain View Doctrine," and no "Exigent Need" to look over my fence,

I do not consent, and my objection as his actions were a 4th Amendment Violation.

He proceeded to get on top of the tool box mounted in the bed of the truck (fence is quite high over 9 feet from street level) took photos. Then put a step latter upon the "curtilage" went up and took more photos.

He came back weeks later asked him if her got his letter, he said no, but they had told him he was covered by the City. Tolh him to get the signed letter from them for his files.

He again wanted to take photos.

Went through the same process as above again, restated EVERYTHING AGAIN to him.

However, this time he stayed off my "curtilage" because of directions received from his Administrator and their Judge, and placed the stepladder just inches lateral to property line and onto the curtilage of he adjacent property took photos.

Weeks later I arranged everything as he directed in rear yard and City still abated property based on the photos, and removed over $20k of property. Plus thousands in fines through "Intentional utilization of Fruit of the Poisonous Tree."

They knew initial action was a Civil Rights Violation because they directed him to stay off the curtilage on the second visit, which was another Civil Rights Violation.

I would like to file a suit against the City and would love to get the HOA as well.

They have made my life miserable.

I believe I have a EXTREMELY VALID COMPLAINT.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Arizona


I have been subjected to ongoing harassment by the HOA where I live. They like to use various Govt. agencies and departments to harass owners.

One HOA newsletter advocated the practice of making constant complaints to such areas of Govt. against owners the reader would consider undesirable, newsletter stated target would move due to this continued practice.

I have ZERO RECORD, NEVER BEEN ARRESTED.

Constant harassment of HOA via Phx Neighborhood Services Dept.


I Been dealing with same person (nice guy) from this Dept. I have told him what HOA is doing in past, several times.

Now he has been directed to take photos of rear yard over back wall.

Stated my objection, this was violation of the 4th Amend and educated him about the "Plain View Doctrine," Boyd v. US and US v. Dunn.

Asked him if ever smelled anything chemical, organic, or decaying organic in nature? "NO"

Ever seen bugs, vermin? "NO"

If he was walking down street was there ANYTHING that would lead him to believe that my yard was any different from any other yard. His answer "Nothing"

I informed him he needed to get a letter from his administrator and Judge in his department that stated they will indemnify him for his actions taken under their direction for his own protection. Due to the information I just explained to him and how he answered my questions.

Then informed him his actions we not within the "Plain View Doctrine," and no "Exigent Need" to look over my fence,

I do not consent, and my objection as his actions were a 4th Amendment Violation.

He proceeded to get on top of the tool box mounted in the bed of the truck (fence is quite high over 9 feet from street level) took photos. Then put a step latter upon the "curtilage" went up and took more photos.

He came back weeks later asked him if her got his letter, he said no, but they had told him he was covered by the City. Tolh him to get the signed letter from them for his files.

He again wanted to take photos.

Went through the same process as above again, restated EVERYTHING AGAIN to him.

However, this time he stayed off my "curtilage" because of directions received from his Administrator and their Judge, and placed the stepladder just inches lateral to property line and onto the curtilage of he adjacent property took photos.

Weeks later I arranged everything as he directed in rear yard and City still abated property based on the photos, and removed over $20k of property. Plus thousands in fines through "Intentional utilization of Fruit of the Poisonous Tree."

They knew initial action was a Civil Rights Violation because they directed him to stay off the curtilage on the second visit, which was another Civil Rights Violation.

I would like to file a suit against the City and would love to get the HOA as well.

They have made my life miserable.

I believe I have a EXTREMELY VALID COMPLAINT.

You want to sue because someone is taking photos of your yard from a public vantage point?

 

[LdiJ]

You want to sue because someone is taking photos of your yard from a public vantage point?

That is NOT a public vantage point. OP, you are going to have to consult a local attorney. An internet forum won't know the climate of your local courts.

 

[quincy]

That is NOT a public vantage point. OP, you are going to have to consult a local attorney. An internet forum won't know the climate of your local courts.

Um, yes it is. Do you think you can sue Google for its overhead views of your backyard?

 

[FlyingRon]

Um, yes it is. Do you think you can sue Google for its overhead views of your backyard?

The concept of public vantage point varies. Yes aerial photography and satellite views are public. Climbing, sticking up periscopes, or otherwise looking over walls too tall to normally be able to be seen over, however is not public.

 

[quincy]

The concept of public vantage point varies. Yes aerial photography and satellite views are public. Climbing, sticking up periscopes, or otherwise looking over walls too tall to normally be able to be seen over, however is not public.

A backyard can be photographed from a place outside the yard. The photographer in this situation photographed the backyard from another yard. Assuming the photographer had permission to be on this other property, there is nothing illegal about his taking the photos. He could take the photos from a second story window, from a roof, from a step ladder, from on top of a tool box situated in the bed of a pickup truck.

Here is a link to an article from NOLO that provides an overview of the privacy laws that can be implicated in photographing another's property:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-neighbor-legally-point-security-camera-property.html

The police may need a warrant to enter the backyard to take photos but a warrant is not needed for a neighbor or someone on a neighboring property or on public property to take photos of someone's backyard from the vantage point of their own property or from a public vantage point (e.g., sidewalk). The same goes for surveillance cameras mounted on a neighboring house that captures activity in another's backyard.

It is what is captured in the photographs and how the photographs are used that can give rise to a legitimate privacy action.

There is an increasing number of cases over the use of drones with cameras that photograph property (for, example, by cities for property assessment purposes) so the laws are starting to change a bit to address the use of drones. But right now and as a general rule, if a backyard can be photographed without trespassing on the property being photographed, there is little the property owner can do to stop the photo-taking.

 

[GD10]

Let me clarify?

Guys,

This is a Agent of Government I am talking about.

Quincy, NO, He DID NOT permission to be on the curtilage of the neighbor. And again, the step latter creates a "Artificial Platform."

Private Citizen can not be sued for 4th Amendment Violation. (Illegal Search)

Cop, Government Employee, working in an enforcement type action may not infringe upon the right protected by the constitution. The only way a Govt Agent can perform a search of property is:

1) Legally obtain a warrant.
2) Plain View Doctrine -----> You have a chain link fence around your rear yard and the agent can see the pot you are growing. No Warrant Needed.
3) Cop walks up to your car and can smell the joint you were smoking. No Warrant Needed, Due to Exigent Circumstance. The Smell

Agent can get on neighbor's roof and look with their permission. But can not do a flyover in a helicopter for your property only without a warrant.

If there is a hill which is public property ,whatever distance to you property and and he can see into your yard that is not illegal either.

Key things here:

Agent of Govt'
Artificial Platform
Enforcement Action or Agent working in a official capacity.
Does not have my permission to be on the curtilage. Which is the land just outside the property line that I still have control over.

Now that that has been clarified.

Take some time and Boyd v. US and Dunn v. US

 

[quincy]

Guys,

This is a Agent of Government I am talking about.

Quincy, NO, He DID NOT permission to be on the curtilage of the neighbor. And again, the step latter creates a "Artificial Platform."

Private Citizen can not be sued for 4th Amendment Violation. (Illegal Search)

Cop, Government Employee, working in an enforcement type action may not infringe upon the right protected by the constitution. The only way a Govt Agent can perform a search of property is:

1) Legally obtain a warrant.
2) Plain View Doctrine -----> You have a chain link fence around your rear yard and the agent can see the pot you are growing. No Warrant Needed.
3) Cop walks up to your car and can smell the joint you were smoking. No Warrant Needed, Due to Exigent Circumstance. The Smell

Agent can get on neighbor's roof and look with their permission. But can not do a flyover in a helicopter for your property only without a warrant.

If there is a hill which is public property ,whatever distance to you property and and he can see into your yard that is not illegal either.

Key things here:

Agent of Govt'
Artificial Platform
Enforcement Action or Agent working in a official capacity.
Does not have my permission to be on the curtilage. Which is the land just outside the property line that I still have control over.

Now that that has been clarified.

Take some time and Boyd v. US and Dunn v. US

If you think you know the answers, why are you here?

 

[GD10]

Your question said it perfectly, THINK I Know.

If you think you know the answers, why are you here?

I am trying to find out IF I am correct. I never stated in the definitive.

I put forward a situation and wanted to get an idea if it was actionable.

I thought I get some feedback or opinions from others.

You for instance.

 

[quincy]

I am trying to find out IF I am correct. I never stated in the definitive.

I put forward a situation and wanted to get an idea if it was actionable.

I thought I get some feedback or opinions from others.

You for instance.

Fair enough.

My guess, based on what you have said of the photo-taking, is that you will not be able to sue the city successfully over the photographs taken of your backyard. Whether there is a legal action to pursue over the removal of $20,000 worth of your property or over the fines that were assessed is something I won't guess at without more facts. As I said earlier, though, it will often be the use made of photos that gives rise to legal problems more so than the photographing itself.

Following are links to the two cases you mentioned earlier that you believe support your argument that the city violated your rights. Perhaps others would like to read through them and offer their opinions.

United States v. Dunn: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/480/294.html

Boyd v. United States: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/116/616/case.html

Here is an additional link, to a case that might be more applicable to your situation than the two you mentioned (and that are linked to above).

Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 US 227 (1986): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/227/case.html

You can review the facts of what you see as an unwarranted intrusion into your privacy with an attorney in your area. Again, however, I am not seeing that you have a supportable action against the one who photographed your backyard. But I could be wrong.

 

[GD10]

Use of photos.

I want to take action against his employer, the City, he is acting under their direction.

Photos were taken during illegal search / Govt' Action and then were used as evidence by the court as justification to gain access to property.