what should I worry about when growing in a greenhouse

[johnstuartmill]

I want to purchase a 100' polytunnel greenhouse and grow a shitload of weed in it. I figure that if i give each plant 16 sqare feet of room, then i will be able to grow 187 full sized plants. What do I need to worry about in terms of law enforcement?

 

[Guest]

Busting you is the one worry you should have. I don't think you need to worry about them coming over and smoking it all. I don't think they will give you a citation for poor ventilation or using chemical fertilizer when they want organic weed. Nope...busting ya is the one worry.

 

[johnstuartmill]

thats what i figure, it seems so easy to fork over four grand for a pre-built greenhoue and grow a shitload of weed. This begs the question why isnt everyone doing it? Im sure there is a reason and I want to know what it is.

 

[Guest]

see previous answer as to why everyone isn't doing it.

 

[johnstuartmill]

but how do they get busted, there seems to be indoor grows everywhere, and a greenhouse sure seems a lot easier than dealing with lights, and wattages, etc.

 

[river rat01]

its because a greenhouse sparks a person's curiosity.(gee, i wonder what their growing in there?)

a properly concealed indoor growroom will never do that.

but, a properly concealed greenhouse will go undetected.

thats why i'm working on a "stealth greenhouse" that will be virtually undetectable.

muuaahaha!

 

[johnstuartmill]

does law enforcement have any right to look in a greenhouse, I know they can legally walk around your property and long as they dont peek in your windows or violate your home curtailment. Its called the open feilds doctrine, its bs i know, but its the law in the US.

 

[river rat01]

they have to have a search warrant to enter your property,
unless your dumb enough to invite them in.(never do that).

the main point is, just dont give them a reason to suspect you.

no smells, no light leaks, no sounds, no suspicious looking shit.

 

[johnstuartmill]

actually they only need a warrant to enter your home, they are allowed to search your land without one. Its called the 'open fields doctrine' the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional because no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy on thier land, only in thier home and the curtailment of the home. Without a warrant or any sort of notification a LEO could hop your fence and look around your yard, go through your garbage, take samples of suspicious items, etc. Many people think they have privacy but the Law has made sure that there are only a few places where a person has, legally speaking, any privacy.

 

[river rat01]

here's what i found on wikipedia:

Distinguishing open fields from curtilage,
While open fields are not be protected by the Fourth Amendment, the curtilage, or outdoor area immediately surrounding the home, is. Courts have treated this area as an extension of the house and as such subject to all the privacy protections afforded a person’s home (unlike a person's open fields) under the Fourth Amendment.

An area is curtilage if it "harbors the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life."[7] Courts make this determination by examining "whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by."[8] Theoretically, many structures might extend the curtilage protection to the areas immediately surrounding them. The courts have gone so far as to treat a tent as a home for Fourth Amendment purposes in the past. [9][10][11] It is possible that the area immediately surrounding a tent (or any structure used as a home) might be considered curtilage.

Despite this rather broad interpretation of curtilage, the courts seem willing to find areas to be outside of the curtilage if they are in any way separate from the home (by a fence, great distance, other structures, even certain plants).[12]

sounds to me like a greenhouse is safe.
esp. if you have a fence around your property that defines your curilage.

 

[johnstuartmill]

If you read a little further down you will note the case of Mr. Dunn, who was doing something illegal in his outbuilding. The LEO's had no warrant and it turned out they didnt need one when they searched it. The law can search a greenhouse, if its outside of the home's curtilage. I just want to know how often this happens and if its something i should worry about.




GARDENS
IN THE EYES of the legal system, all Cannabis gardens are not created equal. The United States Supreme Court has held that some gardens deserve more protection than others. Specifically, the constitutional protections afforded a person' s Cannabis garden depend on whether the garden is located inside a home; outside a home, but inside the home's curtilage; or outside a home and outside the home's curtilage.

Those gardens located inside a home have the greatest constitutional protection against searches by police officers. Those gardens located outside a home, but within a home's cartilage, while in theory entitled to the same protection as those inside a home, in practice receive less protection. Lastly, a garden located outside a home, and outside the home's cartilage, receives very little, if any, protection.
Marijuana Gardens in the Home
As noted above, a Cannabis garden located inside the four walls and beneath the roof of a home is entitled to the same stringent constitutional protections as every other item located in the home. Therefore, the law concerning such gardens has been largely explained in the preceding chapter.

Marijuana Gardens inside the Curtilage of a Home
As mentioned in Chapter 7, the Supreme Court has interpreted the federal constitution as providing maximum protection against police search not only of a home itself, but also of that area termed the "curtilage" of a home. Roughly speaking, a home's curtilage is the area that closely surrounds the outside of the home and for which the average person expects a high degree of privacy. If a court concludes that an area is within the curtilage of a home, the police must have a search warrant (or an exception to the warrant requirement) in order to search the area.

The Supreme Court has refused to create a "bright-line rule," which would classify an area as "curtilage" if it falls within a set distance from the home. However, the Court has formulated a test for deciding what is, and what is not, included in a home's curtilage. Under this test, the Court examines "whether the area harbors the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." The Court has spelled out four important factors that help to define a home's curtilage. These are:
(1) The proximity of the area to the home
(2) Whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home
(3) The nature of the uses to which the area is put
(4) The steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by
An example of how the Court applies these criteria when ruling on a police officer's warrant less search is provided by the case of Mr. Dunn. DBA agents received information that a large quantity of chemicals used to manufacture illegal drugs had been delivered to Mr. Dunn's ranch in a truck.

The agents took aerial photographs of Mr. Dunn's ranch and saw a truck parked outside a barn located approximately sixty yards from his home. The agents also discovered from the photographs that Mr. Dunn's ranch was quite a fortress. The photos revealed that the ranch was completely encircled by a fence. In addition, there were a number of interior barbed-wire fences, one of which encircled the home, but did not encircle the barn. The front of the barn was blocked by an additional wooden fence with waist-high locked gates.

One evening, several DBA agents without a search warrant snuck up to Dunn's barn-disregarding every fence in their path-to investigate the possibility that he was manufacturing illegal drugs. They could hear a motor running in the barn and could smell a chemical associated with illicit drug manufacturing. Based on these observations, the agents obtained a search warrant for the barn that led to the seizure of drug-manufacturing lab and the arrest of Mr. Dunn.

Mr. Dunn argued that the agents' initial search, which brought them onto his property and up to the barn, was illegal because they invaded the curtilage of his home without a warrant. The United States Supreme Court rejected Dunn's argument, finding the barn was not inside the curtilage of Dunn's home. The Court explained that the barn was a substantial distance from the home (60 yards), and was not treated as an adjunct of the home. Second, the barn was not within the fence that surrounded the home and that marked off the area that was part of the home. Third, the agents had information prior to their entry that the barn was not used as part of the home, but rather as an exterior drug lab. Lastly, the Court explained that Dunn did little to protect the barn from observation by people standing outside the property. The Court noted that the fences were all of the see-through variety, of the type used to corral livestock, rather than the type of tall solid fence ordinarily used to ensure privacy .Therefore, the Court concluded, the barn was not inside the curtilage of Dunn's home and hence no warrant was required

Creating a Curtilage in the Eyes of a Court
Anyone desiring the increased protection given to a home's curtilage would be wise to make use of the four criteria discussed in the preceding section. If a court finds that a person's garden was within the curtilage of his home, the court will be forced to grant the garden the increased protection afforded by the Constitution. This means that the police cannot enter the garden without a warrant unless one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement applies.

In one case a sheriff observed Cannabis plants growing in plain view next to a man's home. The area, although not fenced off, was clearly within the curtilage of the man's home. Without getting a warrant, the sheriff walked up to the plants and pulled them up. The man was subsequently convicted of cultivating marijuana.

On appeal, however, the sheriff's warrant less seizure of the plants was declared illegal. The appellate court explained that the sheriff's plain-view observation of the Cannabis plants was entirely legal and gave the sheriff probable cause. However, because the plants were within the curtilage of the Nan’s home, the sheriff's act of physically entering the curtilage without first Detaining a warrant was illegal under the Constitution. Therefore, the court of appeal reversed the man's conviction, holding that the illegally seized plants; would have been excluded from evidence.

Increasing the privacy of a garden is a matter of common sense. Anything that separates a garden from the rest of humanity is a plus. To increase the chances hat a court will find the garden within a home’s curtilage, the cases teach that the Lome and garden should be surrounded by a large and impenetrable fence, one hat passers-by cannot see under, through, or over. Additionally, the property: should be designed to integrate, rather than separate, the garden and the home. All lateral boundaries such as mounds, hedges, trees, and streams should be: employed as blocking devices. A locked gate should block the driveway and all >there entrances to the home. Mail should be delivered off site-for example, to a >sot office box. If feasible, utility meter readings should be taken by the owner o further increase privacy. "No Trespassing" signs should be liberally placed around the perimeter of the property.

In one case, a police officer peered through a knothole in a wooden fence and aw what he believed were Cannabis plants growing in Patrick Lovelace's •backyard. He used his observations to obtain a search warrant for the residence, n court; Patrick argued that the officer's first view of his garden constituted an illegal search because the officer unreasonably invaded the privacy of his urtilage by peeking through the knothole. Patrick's attorney was able to get the officer to admit in court that he could not see over or under the fence, and was able o gain his view of the garden only by peering through a one-inch-wide knothole, "he officer also testified that there were very few holes in the fence. In an attempt creating a Curtilage in the Eyes of a Court
Anyone desiring the increased protection given to a home's curtilage would be wise to make use of the four criteria discussed in the preceding section. If a court finds that a person's garden was within the curtilage of his home, the court will be forced to grant the garden the increased protection afforded by the Constitution. This means that the police cannot enter the garden without a warrant unless one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement applies.

In one case a sheriff observed Cannabis plants growing in plain view next to a man's home. The area, although not fenced off, was clearly within the curtilage of the man's home. Without getting a warrant, the sheriff walked up to the plants and pulled them up. The man was subsequently convicted of cultivating marijuana.

On appeal, however, the sheriff's warrant less seizure of the plants was declared illegal. The appellate court explained that the sheriff's plain-view observation of the Cannabis plants was entirely legal and gave the sheriff probable cause. However, because the plants were within the curtilage of the man's home, the sheriff's act of physically entering the curtilage without first obtaining a warrant was illegal under the Constitution. Therefore, the court of appeal reversed the man's conviction, holding that the illegally seized plants should have been excluded from evidence.

Increasing the privacy of a garden is a matter of common sense. Anything that separates a garden from the rest of humanity is a plus. To increase the chances: hat a court will find the garden within a home's curtilage, the cases teach that the ionic and garden should be surrounded by a large and impenetrable fence, one: hat passers-by cannot see under, through, or over. Additionally, the property should be designed to integrate, rather than separate, the garden and the home. All lateral boundaries such as mounds, hedges, trees, and streams should be employed as blocking devices. A locked gate should block the driveway and all 3ther entrances to the home. Mail should be delivered off site-for example, to a 3ost office box. If feasible, utility meter readings should be taken by the owner o further increase privacy. "No Trespassing" signs should be liberally placed around the perimeter of the property.

In one case, a police officer peered through a knothole in a wooden fence and; aw what he believed were Cannabis plants growing in Patrick Lovelace's backyard. He used his observations to obtain a search warrant for the residence, n court; Patrick argued that the officer's first view of his garden constituted an illegal search because the officer unreasonably invaded the privacy of his :urtilage by peeking through the knothole. Patrick's attorney was able to get the officer to admit in court that he could not see over or under the fence, and was able o gain his view of the garden only by peering through a one-inch-wide knothole; the officer also testified that there were very few holes in the fence. In an attempt to counter Patrick's arguments, the prosecutor argued that the Cannabis garden' was in plain view because the officer was on a public sidewalk, and anyone could have looked through the knothole.

The court agreed with Patrick, ruling that the officer's peeking was an unlawful warrant less search. The court based its decision on the fact that the officer originally viewed the plants by placing his face within one inch of the fence. There was no evidence that pedestrians ordinarily got within one inch of the knothole to spy into Patrick's backyard. Therefore, although the officer was legally on public property when he looked through the knothole, the judge deemed the officer's action an unreasonable and hence illegal invasion of Patrick's privacy.

The cases make clear that a person must protect his garden not only from people who may pass by at ground level, but also from possible viewing from aboveground. In many cases, a person's failure to protect his garden from the prying eyes of his neighbor's second-story window has proven fatal. For example, in one case, police officers were able to identify 77 Cannabis plants in the curtilage of a woman's backyard by viewing the plants from a neighbor's second-story window. The court held that although the garden was inside the curtilage of the gardener's home and could not have been viewed in any other manner, the gardener had no reasonable expectation of privacy, given that the plants could be seen in plain view from her neighbor's window.

Likewise, the United States Supreme Court has held that under certain circumstances a police officer's warrant less aerial surveillance of a person's Cannabis plants, even if they are within the curtilage of a home, violates no reasonable expectation of privacy and hence is not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

Successfully Constructed Curtilages
Mr. Depew was a practicing nudist and lived in a remote location in Idaho so that he could enjoy his chosen lifestyle in privacy and without interference. One day, officers heard from an informant who claimed that Mr. Depew was growing Cannabis on his property. The officers ran Mr. Depew's name through the police computer system and discovered that he had previously been convicted of growing Cannabis. Based on this information (which they knew was not yet sufficient to obtain a search warrant) one of the officers in an unmarked car and wearing plain clothes drove out near Mr. Depew's house and pretended to have car trouble. He began walking up to Mr. Depew's house, but before he could get too far, Mr. Depew met him on the driveway about fifty feet from the home. The officer chatted with Mr. Depew and detected the aroma of growing Cannabis. The officer left without revealing his identity and obtained a search warrant based on this evidence combined with the informant's tip and Mr. Depew's police records. A search under the warrant uncovered over 1000 Cannabis plants.

Mr. Depew argued that the officer's entry up the driveway of his secluded house was an unlawful warrant less entry into the curtilage of his home. The Court f Appeal for the Ninth Circuit agreed with Depew and reversed his conviction.

The Ninth Circuit analyzed the previously mentioned four factors used to determine whether or not an area is within the curtilage of a home, concluding that /hen the officer walked up Depew' s secluded and protected driveway, he entered n area that was clearly identifiable as part of Depew' s home. The court explained lat Mr. Depew took efforts to protect his privacy and to prevent observation of is home by outsiders. Mr. Depew's home was not visible from the road due to long driveway and a thick row of trees. The Ninth Circuit also noted that Depew ad posted "No Trespassing" signs in an effort to protect the inner areas of his land rom observation. In particular, the court also noted that Mr. Depew had all his lail delivered to a post office box, so that even postal workers would not enter is property. Additionally, Depew had arranged with the utility company to lake his own meter readings, thereby assuring that not even meter readers would ome onto his property.

When all these factors where considered, the Ninth Circuit concluded that 'hen the officer smelled marijuana he was standing illegally within the curtilage f Depew's home. Since the officer did not have a warrant or Mr. Depew's onsent, his observations were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. !consequently, despite the recovery of over 1000 Cannabis plants, Mr. Depew's conviction was reversed. (US. v. Depew [9th Cir. Nov. 1993] 8 F 3d 1424.)

A federal district court in Florida ordered all the Cannabis plants seized from imes Seidel's yard excluded from evidence because the police entered the urtilage of Mr. Seidel's home without first obtaining a search warrant. Police officers went to Mr. Seidel's home after flying over in a helicopter and spotting 'hat they believed were numerous Cannabis plants growing in his back yard, /hen they arrived at his property, they found that trees and other almost penetrable foliage surrounded Mr. Seidel's property, making it almost imposable for passersby to look into his yard. In addition, the property was surrounded y a fence on three sides, with the fourth boundary clearly marked by trees and lick foliage. "No Trespassing" signs were posted around the perimeter of the property, and the only gate onto the premises was always locked and bore a sign inviting "Beep Horn and Wait."

When Mr. Seidel went to see who was beeping at his gate, he was confronted y several police cars, armed police officers, and a helicopter hovering overhead! /hen Mr. Seidel asked if the officers had a search warrant they told him "If you can’t let us in, we're coming in anyway." Under such coercion, Mr. Seidel unlocked his gate and let the officers in. A large number of Cannabis plants were incited in Mr. Seidel's backyard.
In a pretrial motion, Mr. Seidel argued that the officers' warrant less entry of is property violated the federal constitution's guarantee against unreasonable: arches and seizures. The government countered: (1) that Mr. Seidel consented > the officers entry by opening the gate and hence no warrant was required; and (2) that even if without Mr. Seidel's consent, the officers had a right to enter the property under the "open fields" doctrine discussed in the next section.
The court wasted no time finding that Mr. Seidel's "consent" was invalid because it was not freely and voluntarily given. The court pointed out that, faced with several police cars, a helicopter hovering overhead, and an officer who said that if Mr. Seidel didn't let them in they would come in anyway, Mr. Seidel's consent was coerced, and hence, was not valid. With respect to the government's argument that the warrant less entry was permissible because the property was not within the curtilage of Mr. Seidel's home, the court disagreed, finding that the property invaded by the officer's immediately surrounded Mr. Seidel's home, and that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area. The court also emphasized that the Cannabis was growing very near to Mr. Seidel's residence: "The police seized some plants directly behind defendant's home, while other plants were grown in a greenhouse and outside, approximately ten to twenty yards from the back of the house."

The court also pointed out that the entire perimeter of Mr. Seidel's property was enclosed by either a fence or a natural boundary. Finally the court explained, "The third factor in defendant's favor ... is the steps he took to protect his home from outside intrusion .... Defendant kept his gate locked at all times. Any visitor would have to honk to be let in by the defendant. No one could easily see onto defendant's land and the public was intentionally excluded from access to the home and property."

Based on the above analysis, the court concluded that the plants were taken from an area within the curtilage of Mr. Seidel's home. Since the seizure was not authorized by a warrant or valid consent, all evidence had to be suppressed. (US v. Seidel [S.D. Fla.1992] 794 F.Sup.1098.)

Gardens Situated Outside a Home's Curtilage
The United States Supreme Court has held that any land outside of a home's curtilage maintains no reasonable expectation of privacy, despite an owner's attempt to keep the public out! This remarkable rule is known as the doctrine of "open fields." The Supreme Court has defined an open field as "any unoccupied or undeveloped area outside the curtilage. An open field need be neither 'open' nor did a ‘field’ as those terms are use in common speech." The Supreme Court first applied the "open fields" doctrine to a marijuana case in 1984, when it examined a police officer's warrant less search of land owned by Ray Oliver.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that Ray Oliver maintained no legitimate expectation of privacy in his Cannabis garden, despite the fact that the garden was located on Mr. Oliver's property in a highly secluded area bounded on all sides by woods, fences, and embankments which prevented its observation from any point of public access. Additionally, Mr. Oliver had posted "No Trespassing" signs around the perimeter of his property. Similarly, in a case decided that same day, the Supreme Court held that Richard Thornton had no reasonable expectation of privacy for his Cannabis garden located in a secluded wooded area on his property surrounded by a chicken-wire fence and posted with "No Trespassing" signs.
The court reached these astounding decisions by reading the Constitution extremely narrowly and finding that the Fourth Amendment's protection for "persons, houses, papers, and effects" does not extend to areas beyond the immediate surrounding of a home. In the Court's words, "an individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of doors in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home." Even thickly wooded areas such as those hiding Mr. Oliver's and Mr. Thorn ton's gardens can be considered "open fields" and hence entirely unprotected by the Fourth Amendment.

In this remarkable opinion, the Supreme Court maintained that it is impossible for an individual to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in an area of land outside of a home's curtilage. The Court stated:
We reject the suggestion that steps taken to protect privacy established that expectations of privacy in an open field are legitimate. It is true, of course, that [Mr.] Oliver and [Mr.] Thornton, in order to conceal their criminal activities, planted the marijuana upon secluded land and erected fences and "No Trespassing" signs around the property. And it may be that because of such precautions, few members of the public stumbled upon the marijuana crops seized by the police. Neither of these suppositions demonstrates, however, that the expectation of privacy was legitimate in the sense required by the Fourth Amendment. The test of legitimacy is not whether the individual chooses to conceal assertively "private" activity. Rather, the correct inquiry is whether the government's intrusion infringes upon the personal and societal values protected by the Fourth Amendment. As we have explained, we find no basis for concluding that a police inspection of open fields accomplishes such an infringement. (US v. Oliver [1984] 466 US 170.)

In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court agreed that the officers trespassed upon Mr. Oliver's and Mr. Thornton's property in order to locate the Cannabis gardens. Even so, the Court held that no warrant was needed because no Fourth Amendment protections applied. In the words of one court, "the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, not trespasses."

An Unsuccessful Curtilage
In a 1993 case decided by a federal court in Montana, Sheriff's deputies "received information from a citizen informant who had observed what the informant believed to be marijuana growing in a green house" on John Van Damme's property. "The informant described the plants seen as three to four feet in height with long, fan-shaped groups of leaves that narrowed on the end. The informant asserted a familiarity with the appearance of marijuana plants based on public service advertisements on television and posters."
Some detectives were dispatched to determine if they could see anything unusual. Although they confirmed the location of the property, they could not see any Cannabis plants. The detectives continued their investigation. "On September 9, 1992, Detective Lewis caused a National Guard helicopter to fly over the Van Damme property for the purpose of photographing the premises. The helicopter conducted two separate fly-over approximately 45 minutes apart." During these fly-overs, the helicopter, flew on the outside perimeter of Van Damme' s property, never directly over his home. The detective testified that the fly-over was conducted at an altitude of over 500 feet.

"Detective Lewis observed the property through the viewfinder of a camera with a 600mm lens and took several photographs. He observed three plastic Quonset-style greenhouses enclosed within a wooden perimeter fence. The greenhouse compound was not covered. The front doors of all three greenhouses were open. No other buildings were within the greenhouse compound. Through the open doors, Lewis observed marijuana growing in the greenhouses."

In the middle of night, Detective Lewis and DBA agent Williams, snuck over a barbed wire fence, and quietly entered Van Damme's' property. They then scaled a five-foot high hog wire fence, and, after walking another 100 feet, reached a 12 foot high wooden stockade fence which surrounded the greenhouses. "Williams and Lewis were able to see through the spaces between the boards in the stockade fence and observed what they recognized as marijuana growing in the greenhouses." The fence was about 200 feet from Van Damme's home.

Based upon the above evidence, the agents obtained a search warrant for Van Damme's property. When the search warrant was executed, 2,333 Cannabis plants were seized.
In court, Van Damme launched a series of attacks contesting the constitutionality of the agents' various actions. First, he argued that the helicopter fly-overs where unlawful warrant less searches. In support of this argument, he presented the testimony of a photogrammetry expert who testified that based on the photographs taken from the helicopter, the helicopter was flying at between 210 and 310 feet, rather than above 500 feet as Detective Lewis had claimed. Unfortunately, the expert's testimony was shot-down by the court, which held that the accuracy of the method used by the expert was unproved. As a consequence, the court accepted the truth of Detective Lewis's claim that he flew above 500 feet, and there was no evidence that the fly-over posed a potential hazard to arsons or property below. The court also held that there was nothing unconstitutional about Detective Lewis's use of a high-powered camera.

The court then rejected Van Damme's argument that the green house was within the curtilage of his home. The court examined the four curtilage factors, particularly noting that the green houses where over 200 feet away from the home, and that the 12-foot high fence enclosed only the greenhouses, thereby making the area "a distinct portion of Van Damme's property, quite separate from the residence. Because of the isolation of the greenhouse compound from the rest of the property, the lack of nearby buildings or facilities, and the absence of any Indica of activities commonly associated with domestic life, the investigating officers had no reason to deem the greenhouse compound as part of defendant's home."
Finally, employing preposterous standards, the court noted:
... Though the stockade fence presented a significant obstacle to casual observation on the ground, Defendant did nothing to prevent observation of the interior of the compound from the air. Defendant also did nothing to prevent the viewing of the inside of the compound by someone on the outside looking through the cracks between the boards of the fence. Additionally, the doors of the greenhouses were open to exposing the plants growing inside to observation and identification from the air and the ground.
Based on the above analysis, the court held that the greenhouses were not within the curtilage of Van Damme's home.

Having found that the greenhouses were outside the curtilage and therefore subject to the "open fields" doctrine," the court held that regardless of Van Damme's attempts to shield the greenhouses from view, it was impossible to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in an open field. In the court's words:
Because the greenhouse compound was not within the curtilage but in the open fields, defendant had no legitimate expectation of privacy concerning the compound or that it would remain free from warrant less intrusion by government officers. Therefore , the fact that the officers entered into defendant' s property, traversed open fields, climbed over fences in those open fields and stood in open fields while observing the greenhouses through the stockade fence does not constitute a violation of defendant's Fourth Amendment rights under the "open fields" doctrine. (U.S. v. Van Damme [D. Mont. 1993] 823 F.Supp. 1552.)

Searching Your Home Based on Seeing Your Backyard Garden
Generally speaking, if police officers discover that a person is growing Cannabis in his backyard, the officers can use that information for a search warrant authorizing them to search not only the person's backyard, but also the inside of the person's home. An actual affidavit in one such case stated:
From the public alleyway between Deluxe Cleaners and the residence at 116 Maynell, I was able to observe the backyard of 116 Maynell.... I noted at the southwest corner of a garage and next to the fence and alleyway, several marijuana plants numbering at least four, ranging from three to five feet tall. These plants appear to have been well cared for and appear to have been specifically planted in that location as there are no other marijuana plants within the backyard. I noted that the ground around the base of the plants was moist, with the plants appearing to have been watered. I noted that these marijuana plants had the characteristics of the marijuana plant in its growing state, being medium to dark green in color and having sawtoothed-edge leaves. Being an expert on the identification of growing marijuana plants, it is my opinion that the plants observed by your affiant were, in fact, marijuana plants in their growing state.

As an experienced narcotics officer I can also say that in the past on numerous occasions regarding the cultivation of marijuana ... I have found amounts of marijuana plants inside of a residence and outbuildings on the property being cured and manicured for the use and sale of these plants. I can further say that marijuana grown by private individuals is picked and commonly taken into residences and outbuildings to be dried and manicured. I have further found that individuals involved in the cultivation of marijuana plants keep inside of their residence and outbuildings marijuana seeds. As an expert on the identification of marijuana I can also state that marijuana is usually hung and dried out of view of the public. Marijuana is also frequently manicured and packaged for use and sale and this requires all types of implements and is also generally done out of view of the public. For those reasons I believe that there can be found inside of the residence at 116 Maynell . . . marijuana and the implements used to cultivate and package marijuana for use or sale.

Presented with such an affidavit, almost every judge will find that a backyard Cannabis garden establishes probable cause that marijuana will also be found inside the home. Consequently, a search warrant issued on the basis of such an affidavit can legally permit the officers to search the inside of the grower's home.

However, at least one court in California has held that an officer's observation of a single Cannabis plant in a person's backyard may not establish probable cause that marijuana will be found inside the person's home. In this case, Officer Miller of the San Diego Police Department received information that Mitchell Pellegrin was cultivating Cannabis in his backyard. The officer investigated and saw in plain view a single "three-foot marijuana plant growing next to a fence at the rear of Pellegrin's residence." Based on his observations, Officer Miller obtained a search warrant and searched Pellegrin's home. Inside, he found some concentrated Cannabis.

The court held that the search warrant was invalid because Officer Miller's observation of a single marijuana plant in Pellegrin's backyard was insufficient to establish probable cause that marijuana could be found inside Pellegrin's house. As the court pointed out, the single plant could have been growing wild without Pellegrin's knowledge. Officer Miller failed to state in his affidavit any facts indicating that the plant was being "cultivated." The court ended its opinion by stating, "the right of the people of the United States of America to be secure in the privacy of their homes is upon too solid a foundation to be undermined by what could well be a happenstance growing of one marijuana plant in a yard." (People v. Pellegrin [1977] 78 CalAppJd 913.)
In contrast, courts have held that a handful of Cannabis plants observed growing in pots in a person's backyard does establish probable cause that additional evidence of marijuana use or cultivation will be found inside the residence. As one court stated, "marijuana plants do not grow in pots and planters by chance. When they are found growing in that manner, it is reasonable to infer those who controlled and occupied the premises have something to do with their planting, cultivation, or care."

Linking Remote Gardens to the Gardener
In a recent Minnesota case, state police officers discovered a booby trapped 178-plant Cannabis garden in a remote area. They placed the garden under surveillance and three days later observed Mark Sedzinski enter the plot and inspect the plants. The officers arrested Mr. Sedzinski and searched his home after obtaining a search warrant based on seeing him enter the garden and inspect the plants. How did the officers know that he wasn't just an innocent hiker who haphazardly wandered into the garden? In the man's home the officers found "small marijuana plants, a book entitled "Marijuana's Grower Guide," two guns, a small scale, and florescent lights. A woman who lived on the plot of land where the Cannabis was growing identified a second man Neil Coyle whom she said occasionally accompanied Mr. Sedzinski to the plot. The officers checked Mr. Sedzinski's telephone records and found frequent calls between the two men. When the officers searched Mr. Coyle's home they found "numerous small marijuana plants under a timed lighting system, bags of processed marijuana, marijuana residue, a digital scale, plant food, books containing information on marijuana growing, three firearms, and photographs of Coyle displaying marijuana. Inside his van they found rolling papers, a roach clip, and three pitch forks...similar to those used to 'booby trap' the marijuana plot." Not surprisingly, this was sufficient evidence to link the men together as well as to the remote garden. Consequently, both men were convicted of conspiracy to manufacture more than 100 marijuana plants in violation of federal law (US. v. Coyle [8th Cir. 1993] 998 F.2d 548.)

Evidence of an Indoor Garden Is Insufficient For a Search Warrant
Needless to say, many people enjoy the art of indoor gardening, raising roses, bonsai trees, cacti, and all sorts of plants which the government has not yet declared illegal. Recognizing the fact that indoor gardens might be entirely innocuous courts have required some evidence that the plant being raised is Cannabis prior to issuing a search warrant. Numerous cases teach that without some evidence that the gardener is growing Cannabis specifically, all the evidence in the world that the person merely has an indoor garden is insufficient grounds for a search warrant.

In one 1993 case, for example, the search warrant stated the following factors in an attempt to establish probable cause that Arthur Russell was growing Cannabis in a shed on his property: (1) an electric bill averaging around $150 a month, when people with houses twice as large in the same neighborhood used only about $50 of electricity per month; (2) the observation of a large vent fan on the shed wall, similar to ones the officer had previously seen to cool sheds where marijuana was growing; (3) the observation of a sprinkler on the roof of the shed, which the officer believed had the effect of further cooling the shed; (4) observation of bright light escaping through a crack in the shed wall on evenings when the officer had reason to believe that no one was in the shed; (5) Mr. Russell had arranged to read his own electric meter; and (6) he kept an aggressive dog.
An Oregon court held that the above information was insufficient to establish probable cause to believe that Mr. Russell was growing Cannabis, as opposed to some other plant, in his shed. As the court observed: "Taking the unchallenged information as a whole, a magistrate could, perhaps, conjecture that defendant was growing something in his shed. However . . . from that information alone, a reasonable magistrate could not infer that defendant was probably growing marijuana." (State v. Russell [Or. App. 1993] 857 P.2d 220.)

Police Fly-overs
Aerial surveillance by the police is becoming an increasingly common search method. For example, in recent years in California, the state has implemented a "Campaign against Marijuana Planting," known as CAMP for short. CAMP's mode of operation is to use airplanes and helicopters to locate Cannabis gardens. In fact, CAMP has even used high-altitude U2 planes for detection and surveillance of marijuana crops! (A federal court approved of the use of the U2 planes, but expressed distaste for such domestic use of spy planes.) In its first two years of operation, CAMP seized hundreds of thousands of pounds of Cannabis plants, valued at hundreds of millions of dollars.
Currently, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations permit fixed-wing aircraft to be flown as low as 1,000 feet while over congested areas, and as low as 500 feet over uncontested areas. For helicopters, these regulations are even more lenient. The regulations permit helicopters to fly below the above altitudes if the operation is conducted without hazard to person or property on the surface. Therefore, there is no set minimum altitude for helicopters. In one case, however, a gardener was arrested for cultivating two Cannabis plants after a police officer in a helicopter identified the plants by hovering only 25 feet above them! The court was outraged by the officer's action, and promptly declared the search illegal.

In another case, Sheriff Jones in Florida received an anonymous tip that a Mr. Riley was growing Cannabis on his property. Jones drove by Riley's mobile home located on five acres of rural property. Jones could see a greenhouse about fifteen feet behind the mobile home, but was unable to tell what was growing inside it.

Jones boarded a helicopter and flew over Riley's property. When he passed over the greenhouse, which was indisputably within the curtilage of Riley's home, he observed that it was covered with corrugated roofing panels, approximately 10 percent of which were missing. Jones ordered the helicopter pilot to descend to approximately 400 feet above the greenhouse. As he hovered above the gaps in the greenhouse roof, he looked through the openings and saw some Cannabis plants. Jones quickly returned to the station and wrote out an affidavit of probable cause to obtain a search warrant. A judge signed the warrant and Riley's greenhouse was searched, resulting in the seizure of some Cannabis plants and Riley's arrest.

Riley argued all the way to the United States Supreme Court that Officer Jones's fly-over was an illegal warrant less search of his greenhouse, which was located within the curtilage of his home, and that the subsequent warrant was therefore invalid. The case split the Supreme Court. The five most conservative justices rejected Riley's argument, concluding that Sheriff Jones's view from the helicopter was not an unconstitutional search. However, they disagreed as to why the aerial view was legal under the constitution.

Four of these justices held that the aerial view was not a even "search." In their opinion, the fact that the fly-over was permissible under the FA A regulations discussed above, was sufficient to make it constitutional. In their words:
Riley no doubt intended and expected that his greenhouse would not be open to public inspection, and the precautions he took protected against ground-level observation. Because the sides and roof of his greenhouse were left partially open, however, what was growing in the greenhouse was subject to viewing from the air ... Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse. The police officer did no more.
They compared Riley's case to an earlier case in which police officers spotted a person's Cannabis garden while flying at 1,000 feet. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the fly-over was constitutional, stating:
In an age where private and commercial flight in the public airways is routine, it is unreasonable for respondent to expect that his marijuana plants were constitutionally protected from being observed with the naked eye from an altitude of 1,000 feet. The Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in the public airways at this altitude to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye.
The fifth conservative justice, Justice O'Connor, agreed that Jones's aerial surveillance was constitutional, but expressed concern that her conservative brethren placed undue reliance on FA a regulations. In her opinion," [t] he fact that a helicopter could conceivably observe the curtilage at virtually any altitude or angle, without violating FAA regulations, does not in itself mean that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy from such observation." In her opinion, the determining factor in fly-over cases is whether or not public aircraft generally travel at such altitudes in the vicinity. If such air traffic is relatively common, then a gardener surveilled by a police fly-over could not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his garden. Under such circumstances, an officer's aerial observation would fall under the constitutional plain-view rule. However, if low-level public fly-overs were very uncommon in the garden's location, then the gardener would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Under such circumstances, an officer's fly-over, even if within FAA guidelines, would then be an unconstitutional violation of the gardener's privacy. Having set forth her reasoning, Justice O'Connor then found that Riley failed to present any evidence that public fly-overs above his greenhouse were rare. Having no evidence that public fly-overs were uncommon. Justice O'Connor concurred with the plurality that Sheriff Jones's aerial surveillance did not offend Riley's
Reasonable expectation of privacy, and hence did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Justice Brennan, along with three other justices, dissented. In the opinion of these justices, the plurality forsook the traditional "reasonable expectation of privacy" analysis in favor of total deference to FAA regulations. The dissenting justices agreed with Justice O'Connor that simply because an airborne police officer is in a place where he has a legal right to be (flying within FAA regulations), it does not necessarily follow that whatever he sees from that vantage point has been knowingly exposed to public view. In Brennan's opinion, the conservative justices were sacrificing the Fourth Amendment protections that safeguard the privacy rights of all citizens in order to facilitate fighting the War on Drugs. Justice Brennan wrote:
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the plurality has allowed its analysis of Riley's expectation of privacy to be colored by its distaste for the activity in which he was engaged. It is indeed easy to forget, especially in view of current concern over drug trafficking, that the scope of the Fourth Amendment's protection does not turn on whether the activity disclosed by a search is illegal or innocuous. But we dismiss this as a "drug case" only at the peril of our own liberties . . .

If the Constitution does not protect Riley's marijuana garden against such surveillance, it is hard to see how it will forbid the Government from aerial spying on the activities of a law-abiding citizen on her fully enclosed outdoor patio . . .

The issue in this case is, ultimately, "how tightly the Fourth Amendment permits people to be driven back into the recesses of their lives by the risk of surveillance." The Court today approves warrant less helicopter searches from an altitude of 400feet.... I find considerable cause for concern in the fact that a plurality of four justices would remove virtually all constitutional barriers to police surveillance from the vantage point of helicopters. The Fourth Amendment demands that we temper our efforts to apprehend criminals with a concern for the impact on our fundamental liberties of the methods we use. I hope it will be a matter of concern to my colleagues that the police-surveillance methods they would sanction were among those described forty years ago in George Orwell's dread vision of life in the 1980s ....reasonable expectation of privacy, and hence did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Justice Brennan, along with three other justices, dissented. In the opinion of these justices, the plurality forsook the traditional "reasonable expectation of privacy" analysis in favor of total deference to FAA regulations. The dissenting justices agreed with Justice O'Connor that simply because an airborne police officer is in a place where he has a legal right to be (flying within FAA regulations), it does not necessarily follow that whatever he sees from that vantage point has been knowingly exposed to public view. In Brennan's opinion, the conservative justices were sacrificing the Fourth Amendment protections that safeguard the privacy rights of all citizens in order to facilitate fighting the War on Drugs. Justice Brennan wrote:
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the plurality has allowed its analysis of Riley's expectation of privacy to be colored by its distaste for the activity in which he was engaged. It is indeed easy to forget, especially in view of current concern over drug trafficking, that the scope of the Fourth Amendment's protection does not turn on whether the activity disclosed by a search is illegal or innocuous. But we dismiss this as a "drug case" only at the peril of our own liberties . . .

If the Constitution does not protect Riley's marijuana garden against such surveillance, it is hard to see how it will forbid the Government from aerial spying on the activities of a law-abiding citizen on her fully enclosed outdoor patio ...

The issue in this case is, ultimately, "how tightly the Fourth Amendment permits people to be driven back into the recesses of their lives by the risk of surveillance." The Court today approves warrant less helicopter searches from an altitude of 400 feet.... I find considerable cause for concern in the fact that a plurality of four justices would remove virtually all constitutional barriers to police surveillance from the vantage point of helicopters. The Fourth Amendment demands that we temper our efforts to apprehend criminals with a concern for the impact on our fundamental liberties of the methods we use. I hope it will be a matter of concern to my colleagues that the police-surveillance methods they would sanction were among those described forty years ago in George Orwell's dread vision of life in the 1980s ..

Justice Brennan then went on to quote Orwell's classic, Nineteen Eighty-Four:
The black-mustachio'd face gazed down from every commanding corner. There was one on the house-front immediately opposite. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption said ... In the far distance a helicopter skimmed down between roofs, hovered for an instant like a. bluebottle, and darted away again with a curving flight. It was the Police Patrol, snooping into people's windows.

Brennan closed his opinion with the following comment:
Who can read this passage without a shudder, and without the instinctive reaction that it depicts life in some country other than ours? I respectfully dissent. (Florida v. Riley [1989] 109 S.Ct.693.)

To sum up, as a result of this case, the law with respect to aerial surveillance by law enforcement is currently determined by the reasoning of Justice O'Connor. While FAA guidelines are an important factor, the constitutionality of a police officer's fly-over is decided by whether or not public aircraft commonly fly at such altitudes at the particular location surveilled. If a person' s garden is routinely exposed to the view of passing public aircraft, a police officer's view from the same flight path does not violate the gardener's reasonable expectation of privacy, and is therefore considered constitutional. In contrast, if a person's garden is located in an area that very rarely or never has public aircraft flying overhead, a police officer's aerial surveillance of the garden, even if within FAA regulations, violates the gardener's reasonable expectation of privacy, and is therefore unconstitutional without a warrant.

It is worth stressing that this rule is currently in jeopardy because two of the four dissenting justices who agreed with O'Connor' reasoning are no longer on the Court and have been replaced by more conservative justices. Therefore, when the next fly-over case comes before the Court, it is quite likely that a police officer's fly-over will be deemed constitutional so long as it was conducted in compliance with FAA regulations whether or not public aircraft fly at such altitudes in the vicinity.
Currently, the Supreme Court of at least one state (California) has held that although the United States Constitution may not provide much protection against aerial observations of a person's curtilage, the state constitution does.

In a well-reasoned opinion, the California Supreme Court explained:
We were not persuaded that police officers who examine a residence from the air are simply observing what is in "plain view" from a lawful public vantage point. Such reasoning ignores the essential difference between ground and aerial surveillance. One can take reasonable steps to ensure his yard' s privacy from the street, sidewalk, or neighborhood, and police on the ground may not broach such barriers to gain a view of the enclosed area. But there is no practical defense against aerial spying, and precious constitutional privacy rights would mean little if the government could defeat them so easily.
Even if members of the public may casually see into his yard when a routine flight happens over the property, we concluded, a householder does not thereby consent to focus examination of the curtilage by airborne police officers looking for evidence of crime. No law-enforcement interest justifies such intensive warrant less government intrusion into a zone of heightened constitutional privacy. (People v. Mayoff [1986] 42 Cal.3d 1302.)
Unfortunately, California is rather unique, in that it has a rule that only evidence obtained in violation of the federal constitution is excluded. Therefore, despite the California court's holding that the police performed an illegal search by spying on a curtilage garden from the air, there was, and is, no remedy, since the action only violated the state constitution but not the federal constitution.

The DEA's Domestic Marijuana Eradication Program
The DEA's Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program, initiated about fifteen years ago, provides financial and technical assistance to state and local agencies trying to stamp out the evil weed. By the year 1990, every state was participating in the program. In 1993, the National Guard spent almost half a million flight hours looking for Cannabis plants.

In 1992, the program led to the eradication of over 48,000 Cannabis gardens and 272 million cultivated Cannabis plants. In 1990, the program led to the destruction of over 188 million ditchweed plants, seventy-five percent of which were found in Nebraska and Indiana. Of the total number of cultivated Cannabis plants eradicated, the government reports that 2 million were choice sinsemilla, seventy percent of which was eradicated in Missouri, Hawaii and Tennessee.

At first look, this program would seem to run afoul of the federal law that makes it illegal to use the Armed Forces to execute laws within the USA. This federal law, commonly known as the Posse Comitatus Act, makes it a crime (punishable by up to two years in federal prison and a $10,000 fine) to willfully use "any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws."

Why doesn't the Posse Comitatus Act bar the National Guard from assisting in state marijuana eradication programs? Courts which have examined this question have pointed to a separate federal law which expressly authorizes the use of the National Guard in state run "drug interdiction and counter-drug activities." The courts have ruled that under this law, the National Guard is authorized to • assist state anti-marijuana programs so long as it is not acting in "federal service."

In fact, the National Guard is not only used in general marijuana eradication
Programs, but it is also used in specific raids on suspected Cannabis cultivators.
For example, in Pennsylvania a squad of National Guardsmen assisted in staking
Out and shriveling a farm suspected of Cannabis cultivation. The guardsmen
Took up positions in the woods all around the farm and even set up a command post
In a nearby church. The court upheld the use of the National Guard for such •
Activities on the theory that the Guard was not acting in federal service but rather}
Was acting to assist Pennsylvania in its "local drug eradication and interdiction ;
Operations." Therefore, ruled the court, the Posse Comitatus Act was not violated..
(US v. Banish [3rd dr. 1993] 5 F3d 20.)

Marijuana Gardens on Public Property
In recent years, it has become increasingly common for people to grow Cannabis on public lands. The legal advantage of such gardening is that it becomes more difficult for the prosecutor to link the plants to a specific person. Therefore, although the police often locate these secluded Cannabis gardens and destroy the plants, they often are unable to prosecute the grower. As a result, the grower loses the plants, but is only rarely subjected to an arrest or search. The other legal advantage to growing Cannabis on public property is that it provides some additional protection against asset forfeiture. First, the government may be unable to figure out who grew the plants and therefore unable to seize the grower's assets. Second, even if the police do catch the grower, the grower's own land is , not subject to forfeiture, since it was not used to facilitate the crime. The legal 1 disadvantage of gardening on public property is that the gardener has absolutely \ no right to attack a warrant less search of the garden, and any person who is convicted of cultivating marijuana on federal property is subject to a mandatory ' $500,000 fine, in addition to the punishment imposed under the sentencing guidelines. (21 USC 841 [5].)
Michael Weiss and his son Jeffrey had established a 30-plant Cannabis } garden on secluded public property in the town of Albany, Vermont. One day,! Unbeknownst to the Weiss', a state trooper spotted the garden during an aerial ; observation of the area. Ten days later the trooper and another officer went to the area on foot and verified that the plants were Cannabis. The officers searched the area but didn't find anyone.

About one hour later, the trooper returned to the garden with further troopers to uproot the Cannabis plants. When they walked into the garden area, they discovered Michael and Jeffrey Weiss tending the plants. They also found several items that had not been there an hour earlier, including two black plastic garbage bags, a plastic garbage can containing manicured marijuana, a nylon bag with shoulder straps, some pruning shears, and a loaded shotgun. The troopers arrested Jeffrey and his dad. Charges against Jeffrey were subsequently dropped, but his dad was prosecuted. Based on the items found at the garden site, the officers suspected that more evidence could be found at the Weiss home, for which the troopers sought and obtained a search warrant. Inside, the officers found additional incriminating evidence.

Michael Weiss argued that the search warrant was invalid because it failed to state facts showing probable cause that incriminating evidence would be found at his home. The Vermont Supreme Court disagreed. The court explained that the items found at the public garden site had not been there an hour earlier and that they were the sort of items commonly stored at a household. In the court's words, "the presence of the defendants at the marijuana patch with common household items created a link between the residence and the site sufficient for the court to lawfully authorize the search warrant." Therefore, the court concluded that the search warrant was valid.

High-Tech Surveillance of Government Land
Just how far the government will go to catch guerrilla Cannabis growers on federal land is demonstrated by a federal case from Florida. Officer John Ray of the United States Forest Service was hiking in the Ouachita National Forest in Scott County, Arkansas, when he discovered 172 cultivated Cannabis plants approximately ten yards off an old logging road. After discovering the plants, Officer Ray "installed a surveillance video camera that was activated by motion and body heat." When Ray checked the camera 10 days later, he found it had recorded the image of a single unidentified person. Ray continued checking the camera and after about one month he replaced it with a 35mm still camera in an attempt to obtain clearer photos. After monitoring this camera setup for a total of about two months, Ray had acquired at least 19 photographs of a man tending the Cannabis plants.

In March 1992, Bradley Rose was arrested on the basis of photographs and the fact that his residence was relatively close to the Cannabis garden. Mr. Rose was convicted of manufacturing marijuana in violation of federal law, and sentenced to sixty-three months in federal prison. (U.S. v. Rose [8th Cir. 1993] 8 F.3d 7.)

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

as already mentioned, the main issues with greenhouses is that they are exclusively used for growing plants (duh!) and hence people will want to know what plants are you growing there. if i saw a greenhouse big enough to grow over 100 ganja plants in my neighborhood, i would probably go over and ask my neighbor if i could check it out, because something interesting must be going in a place desgined to grow plants that size. i pulled a couple harvests from a greenhouse but keeping nosy people away was too much work, heck, i even had neighbors climbing walls and shit to try to get a look inside, good thing they never got to an elevation that allowed them to do see inside the gh fully.
ghs are risky stuff.
peace

 

[johnstuartmill]

thanks pazverde

 

[river rat01]

this is exactly why im working on a stealth greenhouse.

i had an obvious greenhouse that was a poly tunnel, 15ft long and 8ft wide in my backyard and all my neighbors could see it.

no one ever asked me about it.
i was just growing ornamentals.

yeah, reading about what the law is capable of is scary.
but lets put it into perspective.

like i said before, if there are no signs that arrouse suspicion, your going to be ok.

i mean, what are the odds that a cop is going to jump your fence in the middle of the night?
close to fucking zero.

years ago, i built a greenhouse that looked like a pool.
i used an old 5ft high metal above ground pool wall complete with the pump and hoses running through it,

i covered the top with white plastic and taped it down.
it looked just like a pool cover.
but inside was 15 plants that yeilded me 4 lbs.
hehe, ya just gotta be sneaky.

read this:http://www.marijuanabusinessnews.com/What_are_the_odds_of_getting_busted_for_selling_marijuana.aspx

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

you are welcome jsm and good luck

river rat, good thinking about the pool. to be sneaky is indeed part of it. concealing a gh is difficult though, unless one has enough land at hand or resources i.e: your pool.. i have been thinking of building a guerrilla gh these days...
peace

 

[ninfan77]

Let's say someone lives on 40 acres... a large greenhouse near the home shouldn't arouse suspicion should it? It's not like leo will be walking all the way to it...

Thoughts?

 

[Wicked]

Steathy is the only way to go.

 

[johnstuartmill]

Well ninfan, let me ask you a question, do you conduct any other sort of agriculture on your land? i think the perfect cover story for a large, commercial sized greenhouse would be that your using it to start plants in the early spring for transplant later, such as pumpkin or tommatoe plants. If you actually do grow these things then people probably wouldnt think twice about it.

 

[Guest]

Let see some of that steath greenhouse u guys are braggin about.

 

[river rat01]

im building one in a couple of weeks.

pics soon to come.

i'm planning on selling them too.
complete with ultra quiet exhaust fans.
they will sell for around $2000 us.

other accesories will be extra- carbon filter, AC, or evaperative cooler, ect.