Police use of drones, good idea or evil diabolical attempt to take away all of our freedoms?

a reply to: DBCowboy

While that is true.

Yes privacy does exist.

As long as you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The police need a warrant to spy on you. Otherwise they are breaking the law. Unless they come up with some bull# excuse. But that usually gets thrown out in court.

a reply to: testingtesting

if they start weaponizing drones the last thing I will care about are fcc violations.

say they do weaponize them.... how will you know the good drones from the bad drones?

Maybe we could train some hawks to hunt drones down.

a reply to: agenda51

Birds hate drones.





Thinking on I think I'm gonna side with the drones and I welcome our new drone overlords.

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?.

12 gauge #4 shot in Mag 3 1/2 shells.

This is legal if they are over you property - you technically own the air space up to 400 feet.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Do you have to ask?

It's all SUBMIT AND OBEY.

Period.

I still there has to be some way these things are not constitutional also.

To bad most don't even know what the constitution is anymore.

peace

I've been meaning to build myself a drone catching drone.... Grab those little bastards right out of the sky, maybe fry them.

a reply to: TacSite18

thats what i am thinking. Cheap mossberg will do the trick.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Police could look beyond property lines even before drones were around. You have no expectation of privacy in public. The same rules that apply to thermal imaging etc apply to drones using the same technology for law enforcement purposes.

* - Open fields doctrine (4th amendment) applies with or without a drone (property outside owners curtilage).
* - a search warrant is not needed when something can be seen from another vantage point. It is along the same lines of contraband in plain sight for motor vehicles.

Night vision is not restricted to law enforcement and anyone can purchase it.

Shooting at drones is probably not the best idea. Different states have different laws and in some states you do not "own" the airspace above your property.

Frankly, I have to question the "rationale" of anyone who thinks this is a "good" idea. "But, but, 'safety'." - Murica

a reply to: DBCowboy

How long until they're weaponized? This is bad, real bad. They'll be listening through our walls soon too. It's bad enough they monitor and record everything we do with our computers and phones. Now we won't even be able to piss in our own backyards.

Build underground.

You're not in the public, you save on power/heating, and the police better have a warrant to come in.

Plus you can mount cameras above to watch their cameras. Lol.

a reply to: EternalShadow

LOL... like a rat.... or the government!

originally posted by: DBCowboy

Drones.
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.

Right on the button mate

Not sure what the problem is to be honest police already use helicopters that have infra red and thermal cameras, massive spot light and cameras than can zoom in very far. A helicopter too can fly over your house and spy on you. I see drones as a cheaper that launching a helicopter with 3 crew on board.

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 few weeks ago an 8 year old boy got separated from a group that was on a hike. By the time a search was organized it was after dark. One of the volunteers owns a roofing company and uses a drone with infrared to conduct inspections. He got out his drone launched it and found the boy with in minutes. Once the boy was located the drone hovered over him with a blinking strobe until people got to him.

I'd favor the police having drones with strict regulations and civilian oversight.

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.

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

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.

* - KYLLO V. UNITED STATES (99-8508) 533 U.S. 27 (2001)
190 F.3d 1041, reversed and remanded.

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.

* - California vs. Ciraolo (1986) (No. 84-1513)Argued: December 10, 1985
Decided: May 19, 1986

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.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I get all of that, but I've spent plenty of years working directly in the realm of judicial proceedings to know how many times these laws and guidelines get ignored, whether inadvertently or purposefully.

My concerns over abuse still stand.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

and of those instances how many cases were affected by those times where the laws and or guidelines were ignored? Why didnt the prosecutor catch it? Why didnt the defense attorney challenge it? Why didnt the presiding judge act? Of those cases that were appealed why didnt the appeals courts issue a new ruling or remand it back to correct mistakes?

Of those how many cases were allowed to stand because the law was followed instead of someones personal opinion on what they think the law should say?

My point is laying all the blame on law enforcement while ignoring the judicial branch's responsibility is short sighted.

a reply to: Xcathdra

On which of my statements are you basing your assessment that I'm placing all of the blame on law enforcement? All I said (paraphrased, of course) is that with new toys comes the new possibility/probability for new abuses of said toys.

Fact: It happens.

Also Fact: LEOs are trained on how to obtain evidence, so if they screw that up, it is on them just as much as it is on the judicial side of things to catch the mistakes and ensure that they are given proper attention, whatever that may entail.

Nowhere did I ever imply that all culpability is on the LEO, but knowing how to properly use their tools and how to legally collect evidence is in their wheelhouse, so I apply expectations accordingly.