It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: testingtesting
Just use your 2nd amendment right to hunt the buggers down....make a good sport drone hunting.
What gun would everyone use btw?.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
drones, drones, drones. Dronsey-drone-drones.
Infrared, night vision, can look beyond property lines, can "peek" without search warrants.
Sure, they (the popo) can just use cameras, and night vision goggles now.
But drones add an element that creep me out a bit.
Does the use of drones violate search warrant rules?
Well, I Googled that and got a myriad of results.
Most involved the 4th Amendment.
The rule of law is one thing. But is the law always right? certainly not.
I will always err on the side of more freedoms, more privacy rather than less. So no drones for me, thank you.
Just curious to see what the learned minds of ATS have to say.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: DBCowboy
Much like police weapons and vehicles, it all depends on the extent of their usage. I don't have a problem with a drone if they're use to, say, search the woods for a suspect using infrared cameras to see through the trees.
But, if those same technologies are used to stare through the walls of my house for zero reason, I absolutely see that as a violation of the 4th Amendment and I would be against that use.
I'm not afraid of LEOs adapting technology to fit the intended purposes of solving crimes, but if they are used for illegitimate purposes (like as described above), then I do have a problem.
But like with everything, there is potential for abuse, so it is something that will have to be watched closely.
A doctrine that extends the exclusionary rule to make evidence inadmissible in court if it was derived from evidence that was illegally obtained. As the metaphor suggests, if the evidential "tree" is tainted, so is its "fruit." The doctrine was established in 1920 by the decision in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, and the phrase "fruit of the poisonous tree" was coined by Justice Frankfurter in his 1939 opinion in Nardone v. United States.
Like the exclusionary rule itself, this doctrine is subject to three important exceptions. The evidence will not be excluded:
if it was discovered from a source independent of the illegal activity;
its discovery was inevitable;
or if there is attenuation between the illegal activity and the discovery of the evidence.
Further, if the primary evidence was illegally obtained, but admissible under the good faith exception, its derivatives (or "fruit") may also be admissible.
held that the use of a thermal imaging, or FLIR, device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant.
the Supreme Court ruled that an individual’s private property is not protected by the Fourth Amendment as long as an aircraft is in navigable airspace; in this case, the altitude was 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 Court said.