Armed with a search warrant, Nelson County Sheriff Kelly Janke went looking for six missing cows on the Brossart family farm in the early evening of June 23. Three men brandishing rifles chased him off, he said.
Armed with a search warrant, Nelson County Sheriff Kelly Janke went looking for six missing cows on the Brossart family farm in the early evening of June 23. Three men brandishing rifles chased him off, he said.
Because that's all the drone recorded, the areas specified on the warrant?
What kind of pussy assed sheriff gets chased off by 3 dudes with rifles? After going to serve a warrant alone?
If you owned a private plane there is no law whatsoever to prevent you from flying over this guy's ranch and photographing it. Not to mention that Google Earth has already done it and posted it to the internet for all to see.
Sure there is. As long as the bounds of property have been defined correctly. When drones come into the picture this creates a huge mess and needs to be rewritten. The current law label's trespassing as being at an "unreasonable height." Obviously this needs to be readdressed with these new technologies. However, in my mind the expectation of privacy clause takes precedent especially considering in this situation the people were indoors and scanned with thermal imaging.
What laws are being broken?
"For decades, U.S. courts have allowed law enforcement to conduct aerial surveillance without a warrant. They have ruled that what a person does in the open, even behind a backyard fence, can be seen from a passing airplane and is not protected by privacy laws."
Also, I didn't see anything in the story about using thermal imaging to monitor them inside their house - where did you get that from?
Armed with a search warrant, Nelson County Sheriff Kelly Janke went looking for six missing cows on the Brossart family farm in the early evening of June 23. Three men brandishing rifles chased him off, he said.
Because that's all the drone recorded, the areas specified on the warrant?
What kind of pussy assed sheriff gets chased off by 3 dudes with rifles? After going to serve a warrant alone?
If he wasn't a "pussy assed" he'd have blown them all away in "self-defense" and there would be bitching about that too.
The police handled this in the most peaceful and least dangerous way possible.
As far as a "robot" review board..... a robot is simply a tool without a mind of it's own.
The police review board will determine if the police used the tool properly or not.
If you owned a private plane there is no law whatsoever to prevent you from flying over this guy's ranch and photographing it. Not to mention that Google Earth has already done it and posted it to the internet for all to see.
Sure there is. As long as the bounds of property have been defined correctly. When drones come into the picture this creates a huge mess and needs to be rewritten. The current law label's trespassing as being at an "unreasonable height." Obviously this needs to be readdressed with these new technologies. However, in my mind the expectation of privacy clause takes precedent especially considering in this situation the people were indoors and scanned with thermal imaging.
Trespassing is predominantly a civil tort, you are confusing it with a Fourth Amendment violation - illegal search. I don't know where this tresspassing and "unreasonable height" comes from. There is no expectation of privacy "clause" it's case made law based on precedent. "Bounds of Property" sounds like it's referring to curtilage and that issue is far from being "correctly defined" and is constantly being litigated.
Looking down from a helicopter or airplane with the naked eye is not a search and does not violate the Fourth Amendment. California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986). In Ciraolo they also photographed from above.
Thermal imaging has been held by the Supreme Court to constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).
Trespassing is predominantly a civil tort, you are confusing it with a Fourth Amendment violation - illegal search. I don't know where this tresspassing and "unreasonable height" comes from. There is no expectation of privacy "clause" it's case made law based on precedent. "Bounds of Property" sounds like it's referring to curtilage and that issue is far from being "correctly defined" and is constantly being litigated.
Looking down from a helicopter or airplane with the naked eye is not a search and does not violate the Fourth Amendment. California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986). In Ciraolo they also photographed from above.
Thermal imaging has been held by the Supreme Court to constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).
Great post. Sometimes lawyers can be fun. Yeah I was off on the trespassing. Yes, curtilage is exactly the word I was looking for. You seem to agree this is defined fairly loosely by saying it is constantly litigated. We should firm this up regarding airspace. I will look at Ciraolo, especially what they have to say regarding photographs (you ommiting this is making me curious). The Kyllo decision I do not agree with, in fact it definitely perked my interest in this topic many years ago. One of those decisions that I think would be completely reversed if drugs weren't involved.
After a quick reading of the 5-4 Ciraolo decision (on wiki) the dissenting opinion is absolutely on point with my views. It's not about where the police are, it's about the expectation of privacy.
Justice Powell wrote for the minority. Also citing Katz, he argued that the decision ignored that case's two-part test.
He highlighted that Ciraolo did have a reasonable expectation of privacy as "the actual risk to privacy from commercial or pleasure aircraft is virtually nonexistent. Travelers on commercial flights, as well as private planes used for business or personal reason, normally obtain at most a fleeting, anonymous, and nondiscriminating glimpse of the landscape and buildings over which they pass. The risk that a passenger on such a plane might observe private activities, and might connect those activities with particular people, is simply too trivial to protect against."
The drone in question is owned by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
It is unclear if it is operated by customs, or the Air Force. It (or 'they'; there is more than one) is operated out of a US Air Force Base.
In this case a local sheriff asked customs to spy (with a warrant) on a private citizen.
If the military is involved (in operation of the drone) this is a problem.
The founding fathers, in the constitution, specifically prohibits the military from doing law enforcement.
Of course some might say the constitution should not be used when battling terrorists.
And clearly these cow rustlers were terrorists, what with the threats and intimidation.
Personally, I don't agree with that view, or that definition of terrorism.
But this is not about this one case. The question is Do we want the police to be using drones?
I think it is an important question, and not one easily answered. Others of course have already given the green light.
And this is hardly the only case. This is one tiny spot in N Dakota. They have already used predator drones 2 dozen times since June. According to the article the drones would be available to every municipality near a US boarder.
I suppose everyone of the cases was likely against some terrorists, the way some people define terrorists. Perhaps after the NDAA is passed, they will find a member of PETA passing around a petition. They can then use a drone to make sure she isn't caring a bomb before arresting her and turning her over to the military be held indefinitely at Guantanamo.
After a quick reading of the 5-4 Ciraolo decision (on wiki) the dissenting opinion is absolutely on point with my views. It's not about where the police are, it's about the expectation of privacy.
Justice Powell wrote for the minority. Also citing Katz, he argued that the decision ignored that case's two-part test.
He highlighted that Ciraolo did have a reasonable expectation of privacy as "the actual risk to privacy from commercial or pleasure aircraft is virtually nonexistent. Travelers on commercial flights, as well as private planes used for business or personal reason, normally obtain at most a fleeting, anonymous, and nondiscriminating glimpse of the landscape and buildings over which they pass. The risk that a passenger on such a plane might observe private activities, and might connect those activities with particular people, is simply too trivial to protect against."
That two sentence summary on wiki is worthless.
"We turn, therefore, to the second inquiry under Katz, i.e., whether that expectation is reasonable. In pursuing this inquiry, we must keep in mind that "[t]he test of legitimacy is not whether the individual chooses to conceal assertedly private' activity," but instead "whether the government's intrusion infringes upon the personal and societal values protected by the Fourth Amendment." Oliver, supra, at 466 U. S. 181-183. Respondent argues that, because his yard was in the curtilage of his home, no governmental aerial observation is permissible under the Fourth Amendment without a warrant. [Footnote 1] The history and genesis of the curtilage doctrine are instructive. "At common law, the curtilage is the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the 'sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life.'" Oliver, supra, at 466 U. S. 180 (quoting Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 630 (1886)). See 4 Blackstone, Commentaries *225. The protection afforded the curtilage is essentially a protection of families and personal privacy in an area intimately linked to the home, both physically and psychologically, where privacy expectations are most heightened. The claimed area here was immediately adjacent to a suburban home, surrounded by high double fences. This close nexus to the home would appear to encompass this small area within the curtilage. Accepting, as the State does, that this yard and its crop fall within the curtilage, the question remains whether naked-eye observation of the curtilage by police from an aircraft lawfully operating at an altitude of 1,000 feet violates an expectation of privacy that is reasonable.
That the area is within the curtilage does not itself bar all police observation. The Fourth Amendment protection of the home has never been extended to require law enforcement officers to shield their eyes when passing by a home on public thoroughfares. Nor does the mere fact that an individual has taken measures to restrict some views of his activities preclude an officer's observations from a public vantage point where he has a right to be and which renders the activities clearly visible. E.g., United States v. Knotts, 460 U. S. 276, 460 U. S. 282 (1983). "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." Katz, supra, at 389 U. S. 351.
The observations by Officers Shutz and Rodriguez in this case took place within public navigable airspace, see 49 U.S.C.App. ?? 1304, in a physically nonintrusive manner; from this point, they were able to observe plants readily discernible to the naked eye as marijuana. That the observation from aircraft was directed at identifying the plants and the officers were trained to recognize marijuana is irrelevant. Such observation is precisely what a judicial officer needs to provide a basis for a warrant. Any member of the public flying in this airspace who glanced down could have seen everything that these officers observed. On this record, we readily conclude that respondent's expectation that his garden was protected from such observation is unreasonable, and is not an expectation that society is prepared to honor.
"[t]he test of legitimacy is not whether the individual chooses to conceal assertedly private' activity," but instead "whether the government's intrusion infringes upon the personal and societal values protected by the Fourth Amendment."
That argument is slightly more sane when dealing with a plane and human eyes, however completely falls apart when dealing with drones. At lease I hope not being watched at all times from machines in the sky is still a societal value in this country.
And Dan I agree completely with your post, and apologize for going off topic.
Obama has promised a veto, but the Senate has more than enough votes for an override.
What do people think the future of this will be?
This president pass up an opportunity to expand Executive power? Dream on. You really need to stop listening to what Obama says and start paying closer attention to what he does.
Once again Saba is correct.
His objection was not to the indefinite military detention of American citizens.
He objected to the president not being allowed to decide which American citizens would be subject to indefinite military detention.
The new version of the bill gives the president that power.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/white-house-statement-no-veto-on-ndaa/
This is reportedly from the White House"
"We have been clear that ???any bill that challenges or constrains the President???s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the Nation would prompt the President???s senior advisers to recommend a veto.??? After intensive engagement by senior administration officials and the President himself, the Administration has succeeded in prompting the authors of the detainee provisions to make several important changes, including the removal of problematic provisions. While we remain concerned about the uncertainty that this law will create for our counterterrorism professionals, the most recent changes give the President additional discretion in determining how the law will be implemented, consistent with our values and the rule of law, which are at the heart of our country???s strength. This legislation authorizes critical funding for military personnel overseas, and its passage sends an important signal that Congress supports our efforts as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan lead while ensuring that our military can meet the challenges of the 21st century.
As a result of these changes, we have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the President???s ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people, and the President???s senior advisors will not recommend a veto. However, if in the process of implementing this law we determine that it will negatively impact our counterterrorism professionals and undercut our commitment to the rule of law, we expect that the authors of these provisions will work quickly and tirelessly to correct these problems."
"[t]he test of legitimacy is not whether the individual chooses to conceal assertedly private' activity," but instead "whether the government's intrusion infringes upon the personal and societal values protected by the Fourth Amendment."
That argument is slightly more sane when dealing with a plane and human eyes, however completely falls apart when dealing with drones. At lease I hope not being watched at all times from machines in the sky is still a societal value in this country.
And Dan I agree completely with your post, and apologize for going off topic.
Will you agree that if there is a warrant, like there was in the case which you initially posted about, that the police should be able to use any means necessary to legally enact that warrant.
And that as technology advances the police should use this technology to do their job.
"[t]he test of legitimacy is not whether the individual chooses to conceal assertedly private' activity," but instead "whether the government's intrusion infringes upon the personal and societal values protected by the Fourth Amendment."
That argument is slightly more sane when dealing with a plane and human eyes, however completely falls apart when dealing with drones. At lease I hope not being watched at all times from machines in the sky is still a societal value in this country.
And Dan I agree completely with your post, and apologize for going off topic.
And Zilla, I agree with yours. [insert couple holding hands]
From Saba's post:
"Nor does the mere fact that an individual has taken measures to restrict some views of his activities preclude an officer's observations from a public vantage point where he has a right to be and which renders the activities clearly visible. E.g., United States v. Knotts, 460 U. S. 276, 460 U. S. 282 (1983). "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." Katz, supra, at 389 U. S. 351."
In 1983 no one was thinking about heat sensing technology, and thus the supreme court has banned heat sensing tech.
In 1983 no one was thinking about imaging from robots 2 miles high, and thus the supreme court should ban the use of drones. (With out an explicit warrant.)
In the cow case the people were not knowingly exposing the cows or their lack of arms to the public.
It is absurd to assume that people consider what can be seen from a drone as exposed to the public. otherwise we are not secure in our homes.
"[t]he test of legitimacy is not whether the individual chooses to conceal assertedly private' activity," but instead "whether the government's intrusion infringes upon the personal and societal values protected by the Fourth Amendment."
That argument is slightly more sane when dealing with a plane and human eyes, however completely falls apart when dealing with drones. At lease I hope not being watched at all times from machines in the sky is still a societal value in this country.
And Dan I agree completely with your post, and apologize for going off topic.
Will you agree that if there is a warrant, like there was in the case which you initially posted about, that the police should be able to use any means necessary to legally enact that warrant.
And that as technology advances the police should use this technology to do there job.
I know this was not aimed at me, but it is a fair question.
I agree that if there is a warrant the police should use legal means to enact that warrant.
I think if they want to use a drone the warrant should state the ok. The same as with wire taps.
I don't think they should ever use a military drone.
I don't think they should use a Customs' drone. Unless it is some joint Customs local enforcement smuggling type case.
Before my local police go out and buy a drone I would like for there to be an open discussion with the public and for the public to approve it's (general) use.
On the other hand, I think the sooner search and rescue teams get drones the better.
Will you agree that if there is a warrant, like there was in the case which you initially posted about, that the police should be able to use any means necessary to legally enact that warrant.
And that as technology advances the police should use this technology to do there job.
I agree that if there is a warrant the police should use legal means to enact that warrant.
I think if they want to use a drone the warrant should state the ok. The same as with wire taps.
I don't think they should ever use a military drone.
I think that's where the hang up is. Not any means necessary. Any means legally allowed. There is too much collateral damage here. My second concern after the expectation of privacy issue is the technology doesn't exist for a drone to follow a search warrant. How much was recorded, transmitted and stored (with questionable security) illegally by this operation? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe they launched it from the road right outside and didn't record until they were on target, but we don't know, that's the problem. This is military technology which is just starting to be applied in domestic situations were laws come into play.
The police have many tools at their disposal. I do not think a drone was even remotely (har har) the best tool.
This thread is about indefinite detention of Americans. That should not be in anyone's toolbox, ever.
However I will admit that you got me when you found an article mentioning a warrant when I didn't look hard enough.
LaserWolf said:
BTW:
I have written Obama (phone, email, snail mail) and asked him to veto NDAA.
Anyone else who doesn't want to see indefinite detention of US citizens please do the same.
BTW:
I have written Obama (phone, email, snail mail) and asked him to veto NDAA.
Anyone else who doesn't want to see indefinite detention of US citizens please do the same.
I think that's where the hang up is. Not any means necessary. Any means legally allowed. There is too much collateral damage here. My second concern after the expectation of privacy issue is the technology doesn't exist for a drone to follow a search warrant. How much was recorded, transmitted and stored (with questionable security) illegally by this operation? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe they launched it from the road right outside and didn't record until they were on target, but we don't know, that's the problem. This is military technology which is just starting to be applied in domestic situations were laws come into play.
I'm not sure why you're repeating this when it's already been shown to be false.
Thanks and holy shit. I just read Dirty South Joe's post on FB. Couldn't have said it any better.
Shit is not good.
The Patriot Act was just an appetizer for what's goin down with the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) which allows for indefinite detention of Americans. All of the excessive force and violence during the Occupy protests nationwide was just practice for detaining large groups of formerly law abiding citizens, now labeled as low level terrorists, for questioning the motives and illegal practices of our government.
well, Bob Dole and Pat Robertson beat George Bush soundly in Iowa in '88...Iowa really dont mean shee-it. Don't get too excited, I don't think the crazy old cook is gonna be the nominee.
well, Bob Dole and Pat Robertson beat George Bush soundly in Iowa in '88...Iowa really dont mean shee-it. Don't get too excited, I don't think the crazy old cook is gonna be the nominee.
Yeah dawgz, I too believe that someone advocating for greater freedom for all Americans is a crazy old kook.
b/w
I didn't say shit about anyone being a nominee, just that I was "feeling" that a candidate I support was polling well.
I'm not sure why you're repeating this when it's already been shown to be false.
Because you (and most likely judges all over the country) and I disagree that this has been settled. I believe adding drones into the equation changes things. I believe the law changes everyday. More and more judges are waking up to the abuses of the surveillance state and making constitutional rulings completely against precedent. Throw the word legal out of all of my posts, calling in the "state Highway Patrol, a regional SWAT team, a bomb squad, ambulances and deputy sheriffs from three other counties" and U.S. Customs and Border Protection in this case is just wrong, overkill and evidence of a poorly trained sheriff.
But whatever, when the majority of the people who disagree with the DAA, think the only person in a position to do anything about AND on their side it is a kook, your pettiness is the least of my concerns.
But whatever, when the majority of the people who disagree with the DAA, think the only person in a position to do anything about AND on their side it is a kook, the facts are the least of my concerns.
This is reportedly from the White House"
"We have been clear that ???any bill that challenges or constrains the President???s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the Nation would prompt the President???s senior advisers to recommend a veto.??? After intensive engagement by senior administration officials and the President himself, the Administration has succeeded in prompting the authors of the detainee provisions to make several important changes, including the removal of problematic provisions. While we remain concerned about the uncertainty that this law will create for our counterterrorism professionals, the most recent changes give the President additional discretion in determining how the law will be implemented, consistent with our values and the rule of law, which are at the heart of our country???s strength. This legislation authorizes critical funding for military personnel overseas, and its passage sends an important signal that Congress supports our efforts as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan lead while ensuring that our military can meet the challenges of the 21st century.
As a result of these changes, we have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the President???s ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people, and the President???s senior advisors will not recommend a veto. However, if in the process of implementing this law we determine that it will negatively impact our counterterrorism professionals and undercut our commitment to the rule of law, we expect that the authors of these provisions will work quickly and tirelessly to correct these problems."
If George Bush had done this, you would all be in the streets with your giant paper mache heads and upsidedown flags.
Comments
http://www.latimes.com/la-na-drone-arrest-20111211,0,7496233,full.story
Armed with a search warrant, Nelson County Sheriff Kelly Janke went looking for six missing cows on the Brossart family farm in the early evening of June 23. Three men brandishing rifles chased him off, he said.
Because that's all the drone recorded, the areas specified on the warrant?
What kind of pussy assed sheriff gets chased off by 3 dudes with rifles? After going to serve a warrant alone?
What laws are being broken?
"For decades, U.S. courts have allowed law enforcement to conduct aerial surveillance without a warrant. They have ruled that what a person does in the open, even behind a backyard fence, can be seen from a passing airplane and is not protected by privacy laws."
Also, I didn't see anything in the story about using thermal imaging to monitor them inside their house - where did you get that from?
If he wasn't a "pussy assed" he'd have blown them all away in "self-defense" and there would be bitching about that too.
The police handled this in the most peaceful and least dangerous way possible.
As far as a "robot" review board..... a robot is simply a tool without a mind of it's own.
The police review board will determine if the police used the tool properly or not.
Trespassing is predominantly a civil tort, you are confusing it with a Fourth Amendment violation - illegal search. I don't know where this tresspassing and "unreasonable height" comes from. There is no expectation of privacy "clause" it's case made law based on precedent. "Bounds of Property" sounds like it's referring to curtilage and that issue is far from being "correctly defined" and is constantly being litigated.
Looking down from a helicopter or airplane with the naked eye is not a search and does not violate the Fourth Amendment. California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986). In Ciraolo they also photographed from above.
Thermal imaging has been held by the Supreme Court to constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).
Great post. Sometimes lawyers can be fun. Yeah I was off on the trespassing. Yes, curtilage is exactly the word I was looking for. You seem to agree this is defined fairly loosely by saying it is constantly litigated. We should firm this up regarding airspace. I will look at Ciraolo, especially what they have to say regarding photographs (you ommiting this is making me curious). The Kyllo decision I do not agree with, in fact it definitely perked my interest in this topic many years ago. One of those decisions that I think would be completely reversed if drugs weren't involved.
It is unclear if it is operated by customs, or the Air Force. It (or 'they'; there is more than one) is operated out of a US Air Force Base.
In this case a local sheriff asked customs to spy (with a warrant) on a private citizen.
If the military is involved (in operation of the drone) this is a problem.
The founding fathers, in the constitution, specifically prohibits the military from doing law enforcement.
Of course some might say the constitution should not be used when battling terrorists.
And clearly these cow rustlers were terrorists, what with the threats and intimidation.
Personally, I don't agree with that view, or that definition of terrorism.
But this is not about this one case. The question is Do we want the police to be using drones?
I think it is an important question, and not one easily answered. Others of course have already given the green light.
And this is hardly the only case. This is one tiny spot in N Dakota. They have already used predator drones 2 dozen times since June. According to the article the drones would be available to every municipality near a US boarder.
I suppose everyone of the cases was likely against some terrorists, the way some people define terrorists. Perhaps after the NDAA is passed, they will find a member of PETA passing around a petition. They can then use a drone to make sure she isn't caring a bomb before arresting her and turning her over to the military be held indefinitely at Guantanamo.
That two sentence summary on wiki is worthless.
"We turn, therefore, to the second inquiry under Katz, i.e., whether that expectation is reasonable. In pursuing this inquiry, we must keep in mind that "[t]he test of legitimacy is not whether the individual chooses to conceal assertedly private' activity," but instead "whether the government's intrusion infringes upon the personal and societal values protected by the Fourth Amendment." Oliver, supra, at 466 U. S. 181-183. Respondent argues that, because his yard was in the curtilage of his home, no governmental aerial observation is permissible under the Fourth Amendment without a warrant. [Footnote 1] The history and genesis of the curtilage doctrine are instructive. "At common law, the curtilage is the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the 'sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life.'" Oliver, supra, at 466 U. S. 180 (quoting Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 630 (1886)). See 4 Blackstone, Commentaries *225. The protection afforded the curtilage is essentially a protection of families and personal privacy in an area intimately linked to the home, both physically and psychologically, where privacy expectations are most heightened. The claimed area here was immediately adjacent to a suburban home, surrounded by high double fences. This close nexus to the home would appear to encompass this small area within the curtilage. Accepting, as the State does, that this yard and its crop fall within the curtilage, the question remains whether naked-eye observation of the curtilage by police from an aircraft lawfully operating at an altitude of 1,000 feet violates an expectation of privacy that is reasonable.
That the area is within the curtilage does not itself bar all police observation. The Fourth Amendment protection of the home has never been extended to require law enforcement officers to shield their eyes when passing by a home on public thoroughfares. Nor does the mere fact that an individual has taken measures to restrict some views of his activities preclude an officer's observations from a public vantage point where he has a right to be and which renders the activities clearly visible. E.g., United States v. Knotts, 460 U. S. 276, 460 U. S. 282 (1983). "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." Katz, supra, at 389 U. S. 351.
The observations by Officers Shutz and Rodriguez in this case took place within public navigable airspace, see 49 U.S.C.App. ?? 1304, in a physically nonintrusive manner; from this point, they were able to observe plants readily discernible to the naked eye as marijuana. That the observation from aircraft was directed at identifying the plants and the officers were trained to recognize marijuana is irrelevant. Such observation is precisely what a judicial officer needs to provide a basis for a warrant. Any member of the public flying in this airspace who glanced down could have seen everything that these officers observed. On this record, we readily conclude that respondent's expectation that his garden was protected from such observation is unreasonable, and is not an expectation that society is prepared to honor.
That argument is slightly more sane when dealing with a plane and human eyes, however completely falls apart when dealing with drones. At lease I hope not being watched at all times from machines in the sky is still a societal value in this country.
And Dan I agree completely with your post, and apologize for going off topic.
Once again Saba is correct.
His objection was not to the indefinite military detention of American citizens.
He objected to the president not being allowed to decide which American citizens would be subject to indefinite military detention.
The new version of the bill gives the president that power.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/white-house-statement-no-veto-on-ndaa/
This is reportedly from the White House"
"We have been clear that ???any bill that challenges or constrains the President???s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the Nation would prompt the President???s senior advisers to recommend a veto.??? After intensive engagement by senior administration officials and the President himself, the Administration has succeeded in prompting the authors of the detainee provisions to make several important changes, including the removal of problematic provisions. While we remain concerned about the uncertainty that this law will create for our counterterrorism professionals, the most recent changes give the President additional discretion in determining how the law will be implemented, consistent with our values and the rule of law, which are at the heart of our country???s strength. This legislation authorizes critical funding for military personnel overseas, and its passage sends an important signal that Congress supports our efforts as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan lead while ensuring that our military can meet the challenges of the 21st century.
As a result of these changes, we have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the President???s ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people, and the President???s senior advisors will not recommend a veto. However, if in the process of implementing this law we determine that it will negatively impact our counterterrorism professionals and undercut our commitment to the rule of law, we expect that the authors of these provisions will work quickly and tirelessly to correct these problems."
Will you agree that if there is a warrant, like there was in the case which you initially posted about, that the police should be able to use any means necessary to legally enact that warrant.
And that as technology advances the police should use this technology to do their job.
And Zilla, I agree with yours. [insert couple holding hands]
From Saba's post:
"Nor does the mere fact that an individual has taken measures to restrict some views of his activities preclude an officer's observations from a public vantage point where he has a right to be and which renders the activities clearly visible. E.g., United States v. Knotts, 460 U. S. 276, 460 U. S. 282 (1983). "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." Katz, supra, at 389 U. S. 351."
In 1983 no one was thinking about heat sensing technology, and thus the supreme court has banned heat sensing tech.
In 1983 no one was thinking about imaging from robots 2 miles high, and thus the supreme court should ban the use of drones. (With out an explicit warrant.)
In the cow case the people were not knowingly exposing the cows or their lack of arms to the public.
It is absurd to assume that people consider what can be seen from a drone as exposed to the public. otherwise we are not secure in our homes.
I know this was not aimed at me, but it is a fair question.
I agree that if there is a warrant the police should use legal means to enact that warrant.
I think if they want to use a drone the warrant should state the ok. The same as with wire taps.
I don't think they should ever use a military drone.
I don't think they should use a Customs' drone. Unless it is some joint Customs local enforcement smuggling type case.
Before my local police go out and buy a drone I would like for there to be an open discussion with the public and for the public to approve it's (general) use.
On the other hand, I think the sooner search and rescue teams get drones the better.
I have written Obama (phone, email, snail mail) and asked him to veto NDAA.
Anyone else who doesn't want to see indefinite detention of US citizens please do the same.
I think that's where the hang up is. Not any means necessary. Any means legally allowed. There is too much collateral damage here. My second concern after the expectation of privacy issue is the technology doesn't exist for a drone to follow a search warrant. How much was recorded, transmitted and stored (with questionable security) illegally by this operation? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe they launched it from the road right outside and didn't record until they were on target, but we don't know, that's the problem. This is military technology which is just starting to be applied in domestic situations were laws come into play.
The police have many tools at their disposal. I do not think a drone was even remotely (har har) the best tool.
This thread is about indefinite detention of Americans. That should not be in anyone's toolbox, ever.
However I will admit that you got me when you found an article mentioning a warrant when I didn't look hard enough.
Well, that or vote for Dr. Paul. :hi:
Hahahaha. :NO:
:feelin_it:
I'm not sure why you're repeating this when it's already been shown to be false.
Thanks and holy shit. I just read Dirty South Joe's post on FB. Couldn't have said it any better.
Shit is not good.
The Patriot Act was just an appetizer for what's goin down with the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) which allows for indefinite detention of Americans. All of the excessive force and violence during the Occupy protests nationwide was just practice for detaining large groups of formerly law abiding citizens, now labeled as low level terrorists, for questioning the motives and illegal practices of our government.
well, Bob Dole and Pat Robertson beat George Bush soundly in Iowa in '88...Iowa really dont mean shee-it. Don't get too excited, I don't think the crazy old cook is gonna be the nominee.
b/w
I didn't say shit about anyone being a nominee, just that I was "feeling" that a candidate I support was polling well.
Because you (and most likely judges all over the country) and I disagree that this has been settled. I believe adding drones into the equation changes things. I believe the law changes everyday. More and more judges are waking up to the abuses of the surveillance state and making constitutional rulings completely against precedent. Throw the word legal out of all of my posts, calling in the "state Highway Patrol, a regional SWAT team, a bomb squad, ambulances and deputy sheriffs from three other counties" and U.S. Customs and Border Protection in this case is just wrong, overkill and evidence of a poorly trained sheriff.
But whatever, when the majority of the people who disagree with the DAA, think the only person in a position to do anything about AND on their side it is a kook, your pettiness is the least of my concerns.
If George Bush had done this, you would all be in the streets with your giant paper mache heads and upsidedown flags.
Them having paper mache' heads explains a lot.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/police-include-occupy-movement-on-???terror???-list.html
And in Syria they killed protestors in the street.
We are better than Syria!
This is only true if you think that women can't be Americans.