- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Do you have a Constitutional right to kick people off of your property?
Posted on 3/19/21 at 1:08 pm
Posted on 3/19/21 at 1:08 pm
The SCOTUS will decide if you there is a fundamental right to exclude others from property.
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid
Issue: Whether the uncompensated appropriation of an easement that is limited in time effects a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment.
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid
Issue: Whether the uncompensated appropriation of an easement that is limited in time effects a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment.
quote:MSN.com
California law requires agricultural businesses to allow labor organizers onto their property three times a day for 120 days each year. The state contends that the regulation is necessary in the specific context of farming: farmworkers tend to be inaccessible to union organizers through other channels, and farm properties lack parking lots or public areas that other workers typically use for gathering. From California’s brief:
[Farmworkers] are highly migratory, moving to follow the harvest every few weeks or months; they often live in temporary housing, sometimes on their employer’s property; they frequently lack access to modern telecommunications technology; many speak only indigenous languages; and many are illiterate even in their native language. The Board’s regulation authorizes a limited number of organizers to access the property of agricultural employers, for brief periods, during non-work hours, solely for the purpose of discussing organizing with employees, and only after notifying the Board and the employer.
Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company sued to have the law invalidated, and their argument is based on land use. They say that the law allowing union organizers to meet with workers on their property is an easement that amounts to a per se “taking” — something that would require compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
The after-hours union meetings don’t disrupt the employers’ businesses, and the state of California isn’t actually taking the property — so to make a Fifth-Amendment argument, the plaintiffs needed to frame their loss as interference with a guarantee that is Constitutionally protected. They chose the “right to exclude unwanted persons.” In other words, the California unionizing regulation deprives the owners of their inherent property right to kick people off their land.
A panel of the Ninth Circuit sided with California, as did the district court. The panel said that because the regulation did not amount to a physical taking because it did not “allow random members of the public to unpredictably traverse their property 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.” The panel also ruled that the statute wasn’t a regulatory taking because the only property right affected was the right to exclude — and that’s simply not enough.
Now, SCOTUS will decide whether the Fifth Amendment protects a right to exclude on par with other inherent property rights. If the justices side with the landowners and agree that the regulation amounts to a taking, it would mean the regulation cannot continue to operate without California paying compensation for its “taking” of the land. That’s novel in itself, but there’s far more drama to be had outside the arena of farming and unionizing.
The fruit-producer plaintiffs argue that the right to exclude should take its rightful place among the most sacred of protected interests: fundamental rights.
Posted on 3/19/21 at 1:11 pm to Salviati
Yes you should. I am very fierce in protection of private property.
Posted on 3/19/21 at 1:14 pm to Salviati
Thread title is VERY misleading, but it is a VERY interesting case.
This case is NOT about whether a property owner has the right to exclude a random person from his property. That would be a question of state law and would not involve the Constitution at all. (Property rights are a matter of state law, as a general rule.)
The ISSUE in the case is whether a STATE LAW granting certain persons access to your private property will constitute an unconstitutional "taking" by the State of your right to control access to your own property under the Fifth Amendment.
Without studying the briefing, my first impression is that such a state law DOES constitute an unconstitutional "taking" and should thus be stricken.
This case is NOT about whether a property owner has the right to exclude a random person from his property. That would be a question of state law and would not involve the Constitution at all. (Property rights are a matter of state law, as a general rule.)
The ISSUE in the case is whether a STATE LAW granting certain persons access to your private property will constitute an unconstitutional "taking" by the State of your right to control access to your own property under the Fifth Amendment.
Without studying the briefing, my first impression is that such a state law DOES constitute an unconstitutional "taking" and should thus be stricken.
This post was edited on 3/19/21 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 3/19/21 at 1:17 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Agreed.
Without studying the briefing, my first impression is that such a state law DOES constitute an unconstitutional "taking" and should thus be stricken.
The synopsis stated that organizers wouldn't be disrupting business by doing so in the evening. If that's the case, the laborers are more than free to leave my property and hold their meeting directly across the street.
Posted on 3/19/21 at 1:22 pm to AggieHank86
Hank,
Will this case have any bearing upon my ability to yell at neighbor children to get off my lawn? If so, I might have to find a new hobby.
Will this case have any bearing upon my ability to yell at neighbor children to get off my lawn? If so, I might have to find a new hobby.
Posted on 3/19/21 at 1:24 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
my first impression is that such a state law DOES constitute an unconstitutional "taking" and should thus be stricken
How about a game warden?
Posted on 3/19/21 at 1:24 pm to Salviati
I know some good old boys who don't, nor will they ever give a damned what the law says. If you jack up their deer, turkey or duck hunting, someone will pay.
Posted on 3/19/21 at 1:25 pm to rooster108bm
quote:Would this be a GW operating under the color of the law or a GW who is not on duty and behaving as a private citizen?
How about a game warden?
Posted on 3/19/21 at 1:26 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Good Lord. The thread title is not "VERY misleading."
Thread title is VERY misleading, but it is a VERY interesting case.
This case is NOT about whether a property owner has the right to exclude a random person from his property. That would be a question of state law and would not involve the Constitution at all. (Property rights are a matter of state law, as a general rule.)
The thread title does not ask whether you have a legal right to exclude (governed by state law); it asks whether you have a Constitutional right to exclude (invoking strict scrutiny in its infringement).
Posted on 3/19/21 at 1:26 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Thread title is VERY misleading, but it is a VERY interesting case.
This case is NOT about whether a property owner has the right to exclude a random person from his property. That would be a question of state law and would not involve the Constitution at all. (Property rights are a matter of state law, as a general rule.)
The ISSUE in the case is whether a STATE LAW granting certain persons access to your private property will constitute an unconstitutional "taking" by the State of your right to control access to your own property under the Fifth Amendment.
Without studying the briefing, my first impression is that such a state law DOES constitute an unconstitutional "taking" and should thus be stricken.
Agreed 100%. Very interesting case.
Posted on 3/19/21 at 1:27 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Without studying the briefing, my first impression is that such a state law DOES constitute an unconstitutional "taking" and should thus be stricken.
I think it would be fine if the union people setup on the state right of way at the entrance to the farm (with the states approval and they stayed out of the roadway).
What insane person could think the state should be able to allow someone onto your property? I understand that state employees can come with a warrant (or without for a game warden)...
Crazy pills
The founding fathers are very disappointed in us. They would have shot these people.
Posted on 3/19/21 at 1:27 pm to texn
quote:Until your state passes the Uniform Playing for Children & Hound Utilization Code, I think you are probably safe in enjoying your hobby.
Will this case have any bearing upon my ability to yell at neighbor children to get off my lawn? If so, I might have to find a new hobby.
Posted on 3/19/21 at 1:30 pm to Abraham H Parnassis
quote:
Would this be a GW operating under the color of the law or a GW who is not on duty and behaving as a private citizen?
Under their duties( in Alabama at least) they go where they want.
Posted on 3/19/21 at 1:30 pm to alphaandomega
quote:And police and fire and EMS and DPS and CPS...none of them require a warrant to come onto your property.
I understand that state employees can come with a warrant (or without for a game warden)...
Posted on 3/19/21 at 1:33 pm to rooster108bm
quote:I had never really thought about it, because our game warden does not make a practice of entering private property without a phone call, but ...quote:How about a game warden?
my first impression is that such a state law DOES constitute an unconstitutional "taking" and should thus be stricken
Yeah, again at first glance, I think a game warden entering your property without probable cause of some sort of statutory violation is probably constitutionally suspect. On the other hand, the counter-argument that jumps to mind is that they are entering the property to manage wild game, which is essentially the property of the State (simplified).
Interesting question, actually.
Posted on 3/19/21 at 1:33 pm to rooster108bm
quote:Sure, just like any police officer or sheriff's deputy.
Under their duties( in Alabama at least) they go where they want.
If someone calls the police and complains that they hear screaming and crying coming from a home, but if that home is situated a half mile off of the road on private property the police aren't going to park at the top of the driveway and hope someone comes running out of the home.
No warrant would be required and no exigent circumstance need exist for that officer to make contact.
Posted on 3/19/21 at 1:35 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Bingo.
On the other hand, the counter-argument that jumps to mind is that they are entering the property to manage wild game, which is essentially the property of the State
Green jeans can kinda do what they want.
Posted on 3/19/21 at 1:36 pm to rooster108bm
quote:In my experience, that is the law in MOST jurisdictions. The question is whether that "law" passes constitutional muster.quote:Under their duties( in Alabama at least) they go where they want.
Would this be a GW operating under the color of the law or a GW who is not on duty and behaving as a private citizen?
Posted on 3/19/21 at 1:37 pm to Abraham H Parnassis
quote:
No warrant would be required and no exigent circumstance need exist for that officer to make contact.
Because they would have probable cause.
Thats why I used the game warden, they will search your property without probable cause looking for a violation.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News