The Humane Society soled me out!

Dennis, Please don't misunderstand me. I am big on Constitutional rights, particularly the 1st & 2nd Amendments. And I believe that your home should be your castle. I would not want the Government to have the right to enter your home without reason. But the fact is that Private property rights are not the same in all States. In the Great Pothole State where I reside a person can legally enter unposted property anytime, not just large tracts of undeveloped land. And they are allowed to photograph what they see. Your rights of privacy are inside buildings. And an open outbuilding would be fair game for photos. What he did would be completely legal in Michigan. There would be no Trespassing technicality or illegal photographing technicality that would protect the horse owner and there would be no legal penalty paid by the "interloper". To protect yourself from the laws you have to deal with the laws as they are, not how you would like them to be, or what you think they should be, or what they are in a different State or in this case different Nation. You may well be in the South (I don't know where you are) where there is almost no Public land available for hunting etc and interlopers are viewed with suspicion. In all the Northern States there is plenty of State and Federal land for the use of the general public. Much of State land and private land is bordering one another and if a private land owner doesn't post his land you wouldn't even know that you have wandered onto Private land. Land rights are different in the North and the South. And in Canada an individual has far less rights than in the US so I am guessing that the property laws are more like the North than the South. I am not advocating one system over another, just trying to say that you have to deal with existing laws as they are written.

In the Great Pothole State where I reside a person can legally enter unposted property anytime, not just large tracts of undeveloped land.
And they are allowed to photograph what they see. Your rights of privacy are inside buildings. And an open outbuilding would be fair game for photos. What he did would be completely legal in Michigan.

I don't live in the south, but out west. I understand what your stating but I'm curious if this applies to track homes in the city with a fenced backyard? If the guy living in the woods has no protection on his land, if he has no signs, Just how close up to your bedroom window can someone be?

Well, window peeking is a crime here that will get you registered as a sex offender. A person could get away with entering a fenced yard one time without penalty but once told to stay out it becomes trespassing. Thieves do enter yards saying "I was looking for Bill, doesn't he live here?" I have a fenced yard in a suburban setting. I also have small beware of dog signs and a Doberman and a Dogue de Bordeaux and nobody really wants to come in my yard. We do have "Shall issue", "Right to Carry" and "Castle Doctrine" laws on the books here so all is not lost. Individual property rights are definately stronger in both the West and the South probably originally based on range rights in the West and protection from carpetbaggers in the South.

Just to let you know, I wasn't stating that the laws were the same there as here in Florida.
TO me, someone looking in my outbuildings where I keep my things, is almost as intrusive as coming in my house.
He wasn't on "public land" or even close to that. He went on what he knew was private property.
Remind me not to move to Michigan, because the idea that you have no right to keep people off your property makes me ill. If I buy my land, I want to be able to keep people off it. There's plenty of public land here. It's just that people respect other people's private land.
People who want to go on your fifty acres of undeveloped woods come and ASK if it's okay. They don't go wandering around on it.

I'm glad that the horse is getting care. Standing in muck like that can ruin their feet badly enough to require euthanasia too. Besides the starving.

Well, nobody is moving to Michigan at all anymore because there are no jobs here lol. A big percentage of the Florida population are snowbirds that came from Michigan. Up here you just have to put up Private Property signs to keep people off your land.

Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman

We know that there is a difference between mistreating a horse and keeping snakes in racks. It is a completely different ballpark. The problem is that there are many out there that lack knowledge and understanding of reptiles and would lump them into the same category. It is a real possibility that sometime in the future many of us will not have the opportunity to keep or work with species that we now do. If the day comes when the majority of the population views the keeping of reptiles as a abuse, I still want you protected by your property rights.

When we decide that some rights are not worth protecting based on emotional feelings for one particular issue we need to be very careful. I know people that keep their rats outside in the barn. If someone feels that keeping rats in tubs is animal cruelty, they still do not have a right to go into your barn and take pictures. If you kept them in a shed, structure of any kind your neighbor shouldn't have the right to go look in your structure to determine the condition of your animals.

I can be inspected by the appropriate agencies (if required) in my state but Bill doesn't have a right to enter my property to check my animals. That should be true anywhere.

If it were another issue one that didn’t pertain to an animal or a danger to a person would you be comfortable to suggest to a person that it is OK to go on to private property because they want to take pictures. Probably not.

As far as I know you need a warrant or probable cause in all fifty states. And that probable cause doesn’t apply to every John Doe who wants to poke his head into your shed.

Dennis, I do completely understand what you are saying, but (yeah, here comes the big "BUT")....the difference between keeping snakes in racks and the conditions this horse were in? Maybe people won't like the way our snakes are kept, but all of their minimum requirements are being met. (USDA inspectors are really big on the term "minimum requirements") This means that they are provided with sufficient food and water, cleanliness to provide comfort and disease/infection control, and veterinary care as needed to keep them healthy and safe. Bare minimum standards. This horse obviously had NONE of those things.

And as has been stated before, laws do differ from state to state....I worked at a fairly large kennel business for a short time 14 years ago. I was hired to do paperwork and such, not as kennel help, I was then asked to help in the kennels doing vaccinations, etc and they thought perhaps my experience could help them to improve things for them....I ended up quitting because they were WAY too big on the whole "minimum standards" thing, and wouldn't make any of the changes I suggested to improve the dog's quality of life....they got to the point that they were on the verge of "puppy mill"...but I digress.....anyway, while I was employed there, they had folks come in with hidden cameras while they were home, and with regular cameras while no one was home, and took all kinds of pictures of their animals, kennels, etc. They were told by both the sheriff and their attorney that in Iowa, unless they clearly have "NO TRESPASSING" signs posted at all entrances to their property, there was nothing they could do about it. They cannot enter your home or buildings, but...from there...fair game.

On the other end of the spectrum, there has been more than one case of animal cruelty that I have reported, and it really seems to depend on who you report it to whether or not anything gets done. I do know that if these things are NOT visible at all from any vantage point away from the person's property, the sheriff or other "legal entities" cannot enter without proof. There was a case where there were dogs being kept in VERY substandard conditions....complete lack of food, water, adequate shelter...a friend had gone to possible purchase a dog, and was appalled (and of course called ME because he didn't want to "get involved". Sheriff said he had had multiple reports, but couldn't do anything without proof.....USDA inspectors basically gave me the same answer pretty much....state inspectors referred me to USDA....and the Humane Society is all but useless in these parts, they are pretty much a shelter and nothing more. But of course, they told me if I could somehow provide pictures to them, they could go in and do something. I did not go in and get pics myself at this point, but will just say in the long run, these folks were shut down.

As I said, I think the line one has to draw between property rights and such gets blurred, at least in my mind, when something illegal or cruel is going on. Which law is more important sometimes is what you have to ask yourself, and who needs protected more....and which is a more serious crime?

I live out in the country because I value my privacy. If someone came onto my property, and took pictures of my animals.....well, I wouldn't be happy in the least, but if I'm not doing anything wrong, I KNOW my animals are cared for, and they aren't peeking in my windows......I view it differently than if I'm doing something cruel and/or illegal. I think everyone knows that I let my emotions get involved in the way I think about these things, but I guess though I feel more strongly with animals involved, I wouldn't view it much differently than if someone had stumbled upon, say, a "chop shop" selling stolen cars....just because they were on someone else's property looking for their dog, should it be ignored simply because it wasn't on their property, or they didn't have permission to be there? In other words, if I ain't doing anything wrong, I'm not gonna get all bent out of shape about it.

Originally Posted by kmurphy

Actually Cat I think it was me. When I said I lived in a small town of 25,000.

Ah, you are absolutely right Kevin! My bad.

Originally Posted by David Scarboro

Cat, I don't think that we have had that discussion. (don't worry, I would forgive you for a lot worse than that!) I grew up in Miami Fl., where there was no privacy, but have come to expect more in this area. I live in backwoods appalachian territory. People here grow pot and many still make moonshine. After rereading my post, the word interlopers might seem wierd, but in this area, where I have lived for 33 years, I am still one of those "flatlanders", who came to stay. At any rate my point was that trespassing is a violation, but is greatly overshadowed by the neglect issue. I have never had to turn anyone for animal abuse, but did have to report someone to Family and Children Services for abuse. That began a small version of WW3 which I joined with relish and I did eventually prevail. I don't know where the line is either. If I had been in the situation of having to trespass to make the above situation right, I would have done so, and then accepted my punishment.

Yep, as Kevin pointed out, you're right...but thanks.

And I understand where you're coming from too, my Mom lives in rural Arkansas and it sounds much similar to where she is. I agree with what you're saying completely.

And I'm thinking "interlopers" came from "Children of the Corn", lol. That's why I found it kinda creepy.

Originally Posted by David Scarboro

If I had been in the situation of having to trespass to make the above situation right, I would have done so, and then accepted my punishment

Exactly.

Good post Cathy.
I already agree with most of your points. I also don't necessarily disagree with the below.

As I said, I think the line one has to draw between property rights and such gets blurred, at least in my mind, when something illegal or cruel is going on. Which law is more important sometimes is what you have to ask yourself, and who needs protected more....and which is a more serious crime?

But, I do seem to be ignorant about the fact that one could have been there in the first place to discover such. My argument wasn't to protect someone from doing something wrong or about what was discovered. It was to protect those that are doing nothing wrong, like us.

It’s not the question that I put forth if someone should lose their privacy because they did something wrong but rather a question if one should lose a right to privacy so you can prove that they did in fact do something wrong. There is a big difference.

Also with the above quote,

Let’s us assume for sake of argument that there are strong property rights in the area which was my flawed thinking. It’s not the question of which law is more important or what was found that I was arguing.

Well, I can see both sides of this argument.

If some kids use my yard as a shortcut, do I have the right to shoot them? Of course not.

The law, in my state, gets a little fuzzy after that. There is an "escape clause". If a stranger breaks into my home, I can only shoot him if there is no other alternative (i.e. escaping out the back door, and calling 911).

I understand Dennis's point. I once stood on the side of the road, and argued with a state trooper for a half an hour, because he wanted to search my van. He had stopped me for a loud muffler (guilty), then decided he wanted to search my van. I was doing nothing illegal, and had nothing illegal in my van, but he had just decided he was going to snoop around in my vehicle for no particular reason.

I told him to take a hike. Needless to say, this did not go over well, and pretty soon, there were more cops on the scene. After the drama was over, they realized I knew my rights, and was not going to to be bullied, they gave up. As I drove away, I laughed a little, because the officer had gotten so wrapped up in the "searching my vehicle" thing, he forgot to write me a ticket for his original reason...a loud muffler.

Back to the point, the OP could have gotten all the pics and evidence needed without having to trespass.

Our civil rights our quickly flying out the door. And, I got news people: once they're gone, they ain't comin' back.

Originally Posted by Bill Stonegate

Our civil rights our quickly flying out the door. And, I got news people: once they're gone, they ain't comin' back.

Oops, "our" = "are".

P.S. the Humame Socety SOLD you out. Not soled you out. Sorry about having to the first one to say that. Ho Hum...