Court Upholds Domestic Drone Use in Arrest of American Citizen

Originally posted by xuenchen


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

Sort of. That 'started it', but then apparently family members confronted the sheriff with weapons, and a 16 hour standoff ensued.

When the cattle wandered onto the Brossarts' land, Sheriff Kelly Janke, who patrols a county of just 3,000 people, rounded up some sheriff's deputies and arrested Mr Brossart for failing to report the stray livestock.

They also took away his daughter, Abby, after she allegedly hit an officer during the arrest.

When cops returned to collect the lost cattle, three of Brossart's sons - Alex, Jacob and Thomas - confronted Sheriff Janke with rifles and shotguns and would not allow officers on the farm.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

reply to post by sonnny1


Get off my airspace!

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
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.

This. Full agreement. His family confronted law enforcement with weapons when the officers were trying to enforce the law.

It was a sneaky argument by their lawyer to argue the antidrone defense. Why didnt he just return the cows?

Originally posted by daynight42

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.

You misundertand. The drone use did not secure the charges. None of the charges are based on any surveillance the drone made. The drone was used to ensure they didnt leave, and that they werent armed when law enforcement arrived, preventing another drawn out armed standoff.

I totally disagree with setting precedent for drone surveilance, but his lawyers argument was bunk.

Originally posted by Oaktree
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.

They weren.t They were used to ensure the suspects were no longer armed.

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by beezzer

 

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

no.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by stanguilles7


That sucks......


Blame it on the neighbor, anyways...........

Originally posted by Oaktree
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.

The drone was only used to locate the perp, not gather evidence, which is why it was upheld. The drone did nothing other than let them know where the guy was. While I am weary of drone use on US soil, this is a case that we should use to establish the limits of drone use. This is a reasonable use, and I can find no fault with it.

reply to post by stanguilles7


That should be updated then. Big difference between an airplane flying over your house, and an unmanned drone flying over your house with the sole intent of spying.

reply to post by winnar


That's the way it should be as well. A heat scan of a house, that shows "grow lights" only show that there are some hot lights in the house. That does not constitute reasonable suspicion by a long shot. For every illegal use of a light, there are millions of valid legal uses.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

That should be updated then. Big difference between an airplane flying over your house, and an unmanned drone flying over your house with the sole intent of spying.

So your wife and daughter are being held hostage on someones property, law enforcement knows they are there, just not where and whether the perp is armed. They say let's send in a drone to find their location and situation. You would say NO, NO DRONE! If my wife and daughter die that's the risk I'll take, just go in guns a blazin'.

If so I'm disgusted.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Right, because drones will only be used for the most extreme situations, just like SWAT right? SWAT was made for only the most extreme worst situations as well, now they are sent to bust old people for pot. Give them an inch, they take a hundred miles.

In future you'll get a ticket or be arrested by a swarm of bees and if you resist they'll sting you to death, even one sting being fatal.

One of you "my rights are dead" people do explain how this is any different from a helicopter? I'm bit buzzled that anyone would even think that.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

That should be updated then. Big difference between an airplane flying over your house, and an unmanned drone flying over your house with the sole intent of spying.

So your wife and daughter are being held hostage on someones property, law enforcement knows they are there, just not where and whether the perp is armed. They say let's send in a drone to find their location and situation. You would say NO, NO DRONE! If my wife and daughter die that's the risk I'll take, just go in guns a blazin'.

If so I'm disgusted.

Ummm......And thats how they reel you in, hook, line, and sinker. You just became their "Drone Boy" poster personage............alive in the land of.....what-ifs. Welcome to newtopia, where every home is your "not-so-secret" peep show and we all have occams razor, to thank as he opens his arms in supplication subjugation. Such a wonderous role model, here in What-if land..............
It's amazing to see how easily some people fall for the incrimentalization........because it was, "only used to surveile", i.e., read, SPY and the S.O.B.'s had no expectation to privacy because it was all performed in the unowned airspace above their private property..............

If so,I'm disgusted.

You Sir, get the YouSir are an _____________(please insert proper adjective) award.....

YouSir

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
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.

I'm sure that information is out there, but you can also be sure the government is hiding it for a good reason (to them)It would not do to have anyone with a debit card and a trip to 'Radio Shack' buying a couple components and effectively bringing down these invading drones. The 'solution' is out there, you just won't find it on the usual internet sites. Probably need to go to an Iranian Blog site to get info, and even that could be intercepted. It's just a matter of time before it is revealed...... by the likes of the guys with the white masks......... It will be an active defense/spy tool until then. Billions of $'s spent, will come tumbling down when the secret is exposed..... now 'G' shills go to work......

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

I would like you to say the in 5 years when the stop sign drone gives you a ticket and when you don't stop for the drone it shoots at you!

People don't have real clue where this is leading us...... They fail to see the inherent danger of this becoming a 24/7 subservience society.....

Originally posted by xuenchen


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

How did the drone alter things?
Other than your opinion of it being used.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

That should be updated then. Big difference between an airplane flying over your house, and an unmanned drone flying over your house with the sole intent of spying.

What is the difference between a known drone flying overhead to look around

and

Some cops in a helicopter?

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
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.

actually, you're wrong to label him a criminal--especially if motions like this are still being filed. that puts the case in the discovery window. you're innocent until proven guilty. that hasn't happened yet.

he wasn't a "thief needing arrested and booked," he was an "alleged thief who was arrested and booked."

the difference there is important.

the american system was designed such that a very rigorous standard of proof was required to convict. this is because was decided it is better to occasionally let guilty people free than to ever wrongfully convict.

somewhat tangentially,
it would have been very difficult to build a case against domestic drone use--that seems fairly entrenched in legislation of the last twelve years or so.