Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Court Upholds Domestic Drone Use in Arrest of American Citizen

page: 1
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+1 more 
posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
U.S. News
August 2, 2012

Court Upholds Domestic Drone Use in Arrest of American Citizen
 


A motion to dismiss charges based on the use of a Predator drone was denied Wednesday


A man was arrested in North Dakota last year following a long standoff.

Police apparently used a drone during the operation.

No warrant for the drone.

Court says it was OK.

The Judge says the drone had no bearing on the "charges".


A North Dakota court has preliminarily upheld the first-ever use of an unmanned drone to assist in the arrest of an American citizen.

A judge denied a request to dismiss charges Wednesday against Rodney Brossart, a man arrested last year after a 16-hour standoff with police at his Lakota, N.D., ranch. Brossart's lawyer argued that law enforcement's "warrantless use of [an] unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft" and "outrageous governmental conduct" warranted dismissal of the case, according to court documents obtained by U.S. News.

District Judge Joel Medd wrote that "there was no improper use of an unmanned aerial vehicle" and that the drone "appears to have had no bearing on these charges being contested here," according to the documents...{continues}


The whole thing started when some cows wandered onto the suspect's land and he refused to return them


The drone use was offered by the DHS.

This may be the very first arrest of a U.S. Citizen on American soil that had the "assistance" of a drone.

The article is detailed and is two pages;
Court Upholds Domestic Drone Use in Arrest of American Citizen
 




posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
It's hard to miss the fact that if he hadn't stolen the cows by deciding to keep what wasn't his, drones wouldn't have been called to insure he was where they figured he was before arresting him.

Kinda hard to call foul and argue charges be dismissed when the drone was just a tool used well into a standoff entirely of HIS own making. Bad Guy = 0 Good Guys = 1 and I'll bet someone got their cows back at the end of that day. All is well, even if I'll personally laugh when folks figure out ways to crash the drones. It just doesn't seem to be a point on the case of the Cattle rustler.


+1 more 
posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


He should have shot it down.

Damned drones


Wish I could find a way to hijack their signals like Iran did.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 

You mean stealing someone else's cows isn't what caused this? Shooting down the drone would simply have gotten him BIG federal charges for attacking an aircraft. Err..... He'd be a lot older before he got back to his farm after that. Why do criminals seem to think that ANY little mistake made during the response to the crimes they committed to start everything should get them off?

I've never understood that thinking. This was the ultimate reach to get off on a clear theft of the animals on the wildest technicality I've yet heard used. Dump the drones, but he was still a thief needing arrested and booked.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


so...how is this different from having a sheriff in a helicopter flying over? or lightweight spotter planes?...police and sheriffs have been doing that for decades...the age of robotics has been going on for some time...by the way, there are simple jamming devices available to public...or....don't steal crap and refuse to give it back, even when the sheriff comes out to your property...geez



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I'm not condoning the theft of the cattle, you are missing my point. I don't take kindly to the spying and loss of liberty that comes with drone usage.

One day they are helping catch cattle thiefs, the next day some sicko at drone headquarters is watching live porn via the drone's thermal infrared censors while you and your wife do the wild thing.

I don't take kindly to loss of liberty and invasion of privacy was my point, and I still stand by my original post since it wasn't directly related to the theft of cattle.

In fact, I believe you missed the point of the whole thread, it's not about cattle theft, it's about the court upholding domestic drone usage on American citzens.

I hear drone porn is the next fetish so you better be careful


ETA: Sorry if my post came off as confrontational, it wasn't meant to be. I always enjoy discussing various topics with you so please forgive my grumpiness. I'm off work in 45 minutes and will be in a better mood then.
edit on 2-8-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by xuenchen
 


so...how is this different from having a sheriff in a helicopter flying over? or lightweight spotter planes?...police and sheriffs have been doing that for decades...the age of robotics has been going on for some time...by the way, there are simple jamming devices available to public...or....don't steal crap and refuse to give it back, even when the sheriff comes out to your property...geez


Well let's see.

The article states that this is a "first" drone use.

And the DHS was somehow involved.

And no warrant.

The point seems to be that this case is setting a precedent.

Helicopters have human eyes.

Drones use cameras and recordings.

Perhaps a drone camera is now an "eyewitness" ???



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 

I'll say you make an excellent point for precedent being set and maybe that concern trumps the point I made about this being a thief, stealing a neighbor's heads of cattle. I see no problem, case by case, with what they did here...but that is a moment of pause if this is the case to be cited for more to come in the future. Point well taken by all that the use today isn't the use tomorrow.

@Corruption

Oh No problem.. I'm a bit out of sorts myself today for some reason. Heck, long term folks like you and so many others, I figure it takes a whole lot more than 1 bad exchange to make for bad feelings and this wasn't even that. lol.. Glad you're about off work.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by xuenchen
 


so...how is this different from having a sheriff in a helicopter flying over? or lightweight spotter planes?...police and sheriffs have been doing that for decades...the age of robotics has been going on for some time...by the way, there are simple jamming devices available to public...or....don't steal crap and refuse to give it back, even when the sheriff comes out to your property...geez


Well let's see.

The article states that this is a "first" drone use.

And the DHS was somehow involved.

And no warrant.

The point seems to be that this case is setting a precedent.

Helicopters have human eyes.

Drones use cameras and recordings.

Perhaps a drone camera is now an "eyewitness" ???



they don't need a warrant for a fly over...pot spotters use infrared all the time, so do fire depts....the only thing i'm worried about is the secrecy of exactly of who ordered the fly over, and who carried it out, what was searched, what was found, etc....if it's DHS, all court documents or witnesses could be classified as national security, and the defendant would not be able to have a criminal court order the release of evidence that would be pertinant to his case...
the law should be changed to make sure all evidence involved in the search cannot be classified with the national security stamp of secrecy.
edit on 2-8-2012 by jimmyx because: context



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Infared pot scanners should be obliterated too.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I dont think he shouldve stolen cows however the drone use is not right..

This is how it will start.. offering to do small petty things building up cases where it was allowed... next thing you know your gonna get caught peeing outside and then arrested.

Drones are spy cameras.... They are spying on us.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


It is a simple issue of not having an expectation of privacy while outside. if a drone can see you, your expectation of privacy is limited.

not that i agree....but that is the argument it will come down to.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
The article states that this is a "first" drone use.
And the DHS was somehow involved.
Perhaps a drone camera is now an "eyewitness" ???


If the drone were not crucial, then they would have made their case without it, it seems.

I was just telling myself, DHS could not make secure our 'homeland' (more like the largest war machine ever) in CO when a guy is about to shoot up a theater, but they can be used to return some cows????. A big, What the hell? These agencies, almost all of them, are so much a joke, just a charade. They never do what they're intended to do, and they usually do the opposite! FDA, CIA, DEA....geez, I could go on and on.

I hope someone hacks these stupid drones and flies them all into the Bermuda Triangle, where they can disappear and never come back.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
And a court would uphold domestic police tank use to kill an American too. They'd uphold a hellfire missile attack on an American family. They'd uphold a MOAB attack on a city. They'd uphold a 15 kt nuclear attack on Tulsa, if they had to. Doesn't matter anymore, it is way beyond control, over the top, and unsurvivable. They won. Live with it.
edit on Thu Aug 2nd 2012 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Infrared pot spotters may be used on public land but there is precedent disallowing their use on private homes. Supreme court I believe. This case should be thrown out.

edit to say I guess they use them on private land too but they have been banned from use on homes
edit on 2-8-2012 by winnar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


If the drones were used to gather evidence, which I assume they were (if there was evidence, no drones needed), then yes, they need a warrant.
No different than a phone tap.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Looks like the judge threw the 6th amendment out on this one.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Now let's see a drone testify under cross examination.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
This is a terrible precedent to set, opening the door for wide-spread use of drone technology over U.S. soil. I wonder how much it costs to launch an operation like this, surely more than say $50,000? I really wish we would allocate more funding to more meaningful purposes, such as education or infrastructure. It is truly sad to see freedom and privacy slowly, and steadily be eroded away in the name of security. It is a truly a large step forward in the onward march towards a full on police state.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 
Every new piece of tech sets a precident.

Finger prints.
DNA.
IR cameras.

Now drones.

(personal note; I hate them. They are an invasive tool that will be abused. They have no right to fly over American soil. Or any other soil. They are impersonal and remove the human element from combat, human itelligence gathering and judgement.)

Because a drone was used in such a clear-cut case, it opens the door for further uses and abuses.

Time to sight-in my scope!



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 




Is "airspace" over a home, considered property???






new topics

top topics



 
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join