If it's at someones home, the automatic ban takes place and no sign is needed.
**add
The injunction applies to "private property open to the public". Someone's home isn't open to the public, compared to a retail store.

It's not as hard as you think it is.  Lets use HPD's covid example. They were stopping people from exercising their 1A due to the proclamation by Ige.  I was there multiple times witnessing this. It's not hard to understand the 1A.  Some were then arrested later for not wearing a mask, after the cops got push back for trying to break up the gathering.  They then looked for something else to arrest people.  Kevin McDonald who ran against Karl Marx was 1 who was arrested for this during a protest.

Then there was a walking protest on the sidewalk heading toward Greens condo in Chinatown.  HPD blocked the road so no one could cross the street toward his condo.  Only to let people continue about 20 mins later.

Then issuing citations for people breaking the incoming traveler quarantine, being out and not going to and from grocery shopping or work, etc...

Someone brought a locked rifle case to a C&C hearing and a cop detained him.  . Yes, he was detained as he asked if he was being detained or free to go and he was told he's detained. He then asked for what and was told the rifle case, which isn't illegal to carry around.  Then more cops showed up and none released him knowing it's a rifle case. So not 1 came by to say, "hey this is unconstitutional".  He then had his pockets searched and frisked.  Then Chief Logan came by and put an end to this and released him.

You're example once again is wrong. Looking over a fence to items in view of the public is allowed. So if a tall cop or one who needs a boost to look over the fence, isn't violating anything.  Same goes if they see something inside a home thru a window or open door.  Again this shows you don't understand the 4th amendment.

It sounds like many HPD have no clue on what the constitution is as they violated it above, at the firearms division, and by your poor examples. 

Thanks for playing. I brought my receipts, looks like you gotta accept the return.

Nuance swooshes you again. You say the 1st amendment is not that hard to understand yet you could fill a library with all the case law since it's inception.

BTW, since you would probably claim opposite if I didn't add this disclaimer, I do think HPD crossed the line during covid in some ways. Sometimes in ways they should have known was better, and other times in ways which were not as obvious.

My example is correct, that shows how little you understand the 4th amendment and the expectation of privacy. You think I just made up a very specific example illustrating a very specific out of thin air? That should have been your first hint I knew what I was talking about, but I guess it swooshed you.
Here is the actual case law. Read it, take your time, and then admit you spoke out your anus. It was a window instead of a fence but it is the same problem.
https://law.justia.com/cases/hawaii/supreme-court/1978/5926-2.html

Wrong again. Thanks for playing. Maybe u should donate $ to MDA and ET since all of u think red flag laws are constitutional.

So no post of a constitutional red flag law yet? Hmmm...i wonder why.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Wrong again? I gave you case law.
I think everyone here can clearly see who is the one who cannot admit they are wrong.

Wrong again? I gave you case law.
I think everyone here can clearly see who is the one who cannot admit they are wrong.

Wrong again? I gave you case law.
I think everyone here can clearly see who is the one who cannot admit they are wrong.

Since u wanna play and ur still wrong. Lets use the Bruen test and go ahead and post history and tradition. Ill wait.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I gave you an example, you said it was false. I gave you the specific Hawaii case which showed you are wrong and all you can do is retort your same empty claim I am wrong. Talk about moving goalpost. The ball is in your court, good luck proving the Hawaii supreme court got it wrong. Better concoct a better argument than nitpicking looking over a fence vs inside a window. You need to look up the concept of expectation of privacy

Now you are going to try and switch topics by using a federal test? Someone doesn't understand federal case law vs state law.

You gave a very vague example, which isn't even close. Going ty to look thru a blocked window (closed blinds) thru a 1 inch gap at the top  is different from passing someone's yard and being able to see over a fence.  Now had you said the fence was tall enough that even that 6' tall officer can't see over it, then maybe it's a diff story. THen you would also have to add in if the area the cops are standing on is public or private. In your case you posted, they were the private common area part of the land and not a public sidewalk. Like one may be when passing someones yard that has a fence on it in your vague example.

The courts add in reasonable expectation of privacy, so the case stated that blinds were closed. Versus someones yard that has a medium height fence.

Thanks for playing.  Your example is like posting "1+1" and someone anwers 2, but you then post "+5-9+100=?"

Tism awareness month.

Wong. The issue is the height and the expectation of privacy. If the officer were tall and could see in the window unaided it would have been legal but he wasn't tall enough and he needed help and that is why it was illegal. A fence would be the same issue. If the fence had wide slots that would be different than if it were a tight fence same like the height of the window and blinds, it all dictates what a person's reasonable expectation of privacy is. Even if you want to nitpick some difference between a fence and a window all of that is irrelevant to my point I made to you about the complexity of search and seizure law.

You are clinging onto a thread to not have to admit you were wrong.

Wrong. Do you even read what you post, or just the first few paragraphs. Are you ready for April so you can be acknowledged?

I will reply when you actually articulate a point.

I will reply when you actually articulate a point.

LOL!

That WAS a reply, genius.   
[/quot