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.
The first of many surveillance cameras has been installed in downtown Dallas. Once the system is up and running, the Dallas Police Department will be able to monitor 30-percent of the business district.
Dallas Police Chief David Kunkle says, "It will create an environment where people know they can't do anything unlawful in the central business district, because the fact that the cameras are going to take away their anonymity."
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Originally posted by ANOK
Some cities have had cammeras for a long time. I know Orlando Fl has cameras all over downtown, when they were actually installed I don't know, but I saw the control room with the banks of monitors in '95.
Originally posted by djohnsto77
When you are out walking down a public street, you have no expectation of privacy guaranteed by the constitution.
Just to clarify, that's as to having your picture or videos taken, of course you can't be involuntarily stopped and body searched for no reason by the police.
[edit on 11/18/2006 by djohnsto77]
Originally posted by djohnsto77
Sorry, but the Supreme Court would disagree with you Infoholic.
If you're out in public view, you have chosen to expose yourself and whether it's a camera or a live police officer seeing you commit an illegal act, the police can act on that information and be able to use it as evidence in a court of law.
Originally posted by djohnsto77Here's some info:
OVERVIEW: Defendant was convicted by a district court of con cealing distilled spirits. Defendant argued on appeal that the district court had erred in refusing to exclude the testimony of two witnesses and to direct a verdict for him. Defendant further argued that the district court had violated his rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The Court found that the witnesses were revenue officers who had picked up a jug of moonshine that defendant had discarded while running. Defendant argued that the evidence was inadmissible because the officers did not have a warrant for search or arrest. The Court stated, in affirming defendant's conviction, that there was no seizure of the jug because the officers examined the contents of the jug after it had been abandoned. The fact that the examination of the jug took place on land belonging to defendant's father did not violate the Fourth Amendment
because the special pro tection accorded b y the Fourth Amendment did not extend to the op enfields.
Originally posted by denythestatusquo
It may be legit if sufficient notice was provided, that people were under surveilance and where, but in public I doubt notice can be given properly. Thus, people could argue that being watched was against their basic rights. Also what rights do you have to not be under surveilance within your own home now?
Originally posted by Infoholic
It is against our 4th amendment right to have anyone/anywhere put up public surveillance. Period.
Originally posted by stumason
But they're not putting camera's in your home. They're putting them in Public places where the Authorities have an obligation to ensure public safety.
Originally posted by jupiter869
For what it's worth.
Laws, however, haven't kept up with technological advances, Sweeney and others said. The laws tend to be reactive, Sweeney explained.
"Everything's allowed until something happens on the front page of the New York Times," she said. "We do not have a comprehensive privacy rule."