The Knowing exposure doctrine
Adequately defines expectations of privacy from societal point of view in not many ways that I can currently think of as it involves intrusive surveillance. There seem to be little in place that restricts this type of surveillance and often, their definitions changing to suit what they desire to see, trust me, as in my case, it isn’t done because I am a criminal but a liability , they causing severe injuries to me and knowing I can prove this? Well it doesn’t end. It doesn’t stop.
I’ve been interviewed many times for my truthZ not a sob story but I do know they act outside doctrines all the time.
Why it does NOT adequately define expectations of privacy IS MANY REASONS in my opinion . Such as that I explained above . I apologize for my workings I am federally disabled in effect of their actions.
Why is does make sense…because if something that criminalizes an individual is in plain view it would be odd not to take some form of action
Why it does not; an officer can say he saw he but have searched for it. And their word always trumps. And blue ALWAYS BACKS UP BLUE. Trust me.!
General public use doctrine states there may be a limitation on the purposes for which the government can exercise the power of eminent domain. There is every good reason why this law does adequately define expectations of privacy in that it emphasizes that there is a limitation THOUGH WE ARE NOT TOLD WHAT THAT IS.
Why is does not adequately define expectations of privacy specifically ? We are not told what those limitations are and how narrow or broad
With Assumptions of Risk ‘The idea is that the plaintiff can’t hold the defendant responsible if the plaintiff knowingly exposed him or herself to the possibility of an injury.’ This depends on the circumstances and whether the plaintiff would have been in them in the fear once had the officers not involved themselves, antagonized, incited or in any way Caused or contributed to the injury.