Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

page: 1
25
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras


news.cnet.com

Police are allowed in some circumstances to install hidden surveillance cameras on private property without obtaining a search warrant, a federal judge said yesterday.
CNET has learned that U.S. District Judge William Griesbach ruled that it was reasonable for Drug Enforcement Administration agents to enter rural property without permission -- and without a warrant -- to install multiple "covert digital surveillance cameras" in hopes of uncovering evidence that (something illegal was going on)
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   

This is the latest case to highlight how advances in technology are causing the legal system to rethink how Americans' privacy rights are protected by law. In January, the Supreme Court rejected warrantless GPS tracking after previously rejecting warrantless thermal imaging, but it has not yet ruled on warrantless cell phone tracking or warrantless use of surveillance cameras placed on private property without permission.
Yesterday Griesbach adopted a recommendation by U.S. Magistrate Judge William Callahan dated October 9. That recommendation said that the DEA's warrantless surveillance did not violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and requires that warrants describe the place that's being searched.


Uh, this one has now been upheld by the supreme court. While thermal imaging and cell phone tracking was stricken down.

I don't really see the difference here.

In this case there were "No Trespassing" signs. From what I gather it was private land. So didn't the agents commit a crime in the process of planting the cameras, in which case, did so without the authorization of a judge because they had no warrant?

The reasoning for the decision:


Callahan based his reasoning on a 1984 Supreme Court case called Oliver v. United States, in which a majority of the justices said that "open fields" could be searched without warrants because they're not covered by the Fourth Amendment.


I can understand this kind of judgement if a helicopter or plane was flying over head (not using thermal imaging...) only because that is something that could happen by normal people, doing normal things.

However, planting camera devices in fields is not normal. And if I went on private property doing it, could I not be arrested? So why is there no warrant needed?

Thoughts?

Agree/disagree with my interpretation?

news.cnet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Sooo when they do trespass on private land and the land owner doesn't recognize the people on his land or believes them to be a wild animal and they end up getting shot at or even killed Judge Pooper Scooper of the Supreme Court might have to rethink that one.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
I agree with your interpretation and am shocked that this could become reality.

I also found this comment shocking, from your source:


U.S. Attorney James Santelle, who argued that warrantless surveillance cameras on private property "does not violate the Fourth Amendment."


I would love to see his reasoning behind how this does not infringe upon the fourth amendment, as you are clearing searching private property.

Is the Bill of Rights and Freedoms written in pencil? because this is a blatent attempt to re-write these policies.

Remind anyone of "Animal Farm"??



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Since they are knowingly trespassing on private land in rural areas, I am sure they won't mind when/if I ever find one of these cameras that I don't hesitate to use it for target practice.
On a serious note what is next? So they can come to my property and put cameras in my field to watch me and there is nothing I can do about it? And I don't want to hear anything from the morons who claim "if you have nothing to hide whats the big deal?" because that argument is just pure BS at this point.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
It seems like everyday I read something that makes me want to be an ex-pat. Sadly most citizens won't mind because they fall for the if you don't have anything to hide line. The DEA and many other agencies are given too much power and don't have to answer to anyone when they make a mistake.

How someone can argue using spy cameras on private property does not violate the 4th amendment is insane yet people with that mindset are holding positions of great power.


+1 more 
posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Can I place hidden cameras in the police precinct to catch illegal activity too?



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Bear this in mind; just because they 'say' it doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment, does not mean it doesn't.

This is the new meme... along with the nascent meme "privacy is not a right.'

Fight this at every turn... because if it were in their homes I guarantee you it would not stand.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
because if it were in their homes I guarantee you it would not stand.


Exactly why I commented about placing them in the precincts too.

Come to think of it, the cops don't even like to be filmed out on public property doing their jobs. They even go as far as trying to arrest the "offending" photographer.
edit on 31-10-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Yup, this is definately Double Plus Ungood...
So just the judicial consensus of case law apparently supercedes basic human rights to privacy, loved the whole 'in hopes to find something illegal' justification for warrantless search of private property. Literally Pre-crime, funded by our tax dollars.
We really are sheep-like... on average, 300 million Americans spend about 30 hours in front of the boob tube (that's 9 billion hours a week if I got all the zeros right) absorbing the pacification with all it's excuses and justifications for the new police state Eisenhower tried like hell to warn us about. 9 billion hours a week sitting on our collective asses watching it happen, that's astounding.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by Maxmars
because if it were in their homes I guarantee you it would not stand.


Exactly why I commented about placing them in the precincts too.

Come to think of it, the cops don't even like to be filmed out on public property doing their jobs. They even go as far as trying to arrest the "offending" photographer.
edit on 31-10-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)


Thats right, they dont like. You cant even film a cop in England anymore, doing anything. Look into it if you dont believe me. Been that way for a few years now.

I knew guy that was under surveillance. He would go into his back yard for one reason or another and noticed for some time that the house behind his always had a blind flap open on the blind in the same wendow. So one day he takes an ax out of the barn, goes to the back fence and looks up at the window and started shaking the ax, pointing and knoding his head as if to say "I am going to come over there and get you".

Well before he could even get back up to the house a local cop pulls into the drive. He wanted to know if the guy had seen anyone strange about the area. The owner said he hadnt and the cop left. The next day he went into the back yard and the blind flap was closed.....after having been opened for several months.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Yup, this is definately Double Plus Ungood...
So just the judicial consensus of case law apparently supercedes basic human rights to privacy, loved the whole 'in hopes to find something illegal' justification for warrantless search of private property. Literally Pre-crime, funded by our tax dollars.
We really are sheep-like... on average, 300 million Americans spend about 30 hours in front of the boob tube (that's 9 billion hours a week if I got all the zeros right) absorbing the pacification with all it's excuses and justifications for the new police state Eisenhower tried like hell to warn us about. 9 billion hours a week sitting on our collective asses watching it happen, that's astounding.



Yea remember probable cause? Then that gave way to profiling. Now its for any reason what so ever at any time.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I've always said this was happening and everybody I've ever said it to has rolled their eyes and changed the subject, because who cares as long as their game consol still works and the bar is still serving drinks.

The time is near when we will all be living in "glass houses" because according to our "government" good people have nothing to hide. We are practically there now.

So be it, the sheeple can have it. I circumvent the norm but my conscience is clear. I will not follow laws that are unjust and that infringe on my rights to be an equal. The government through its lust for control, power and profit, has forfeit it's right to impose its laws on me, to rule the way I live. A moral disposition and my strive for a life uninhibited by the rules of sociopaths are the only things that truly govern me now.
edit on 31-10-2012 by dainoyfb because: of typo.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Smash them or steal them. Thats my motto regarding CCTV!



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I watched "Enemy of the State" again the other day. It was truly worth the watch, not only is it a good flick, it was a good reminder of what is really going on these days.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Since regular citizens also have the right to arrest doesn't this make it so that they also can tresspass and spy on whoever they wish? What ever happened to "badges don't grant extra rights"? Or did it ever even excist?



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I think we need to hold off on getting too excited. This ruling in the article is only from a District Court -- not the US Supreme Court. Those previously stated ruling from the Supreme Court will likely hold sway if the appeals ever make it that far.

I'd just keep an eye on it as it progresses through the courts.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


NOT the Supreme Court - please read the post first ..............then comment...thank you\

BUT it will go to the SC eventually



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


One more step closer to a facist police state.

Let's embrace our enslavement together?



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Back to school I guess....because everything I learned in civics and law class no longer applies in this country.


I guess we really are no different than Uzbekistan or any other despotic country or Banana Republic of your choice. :shk:

Pardon me while I goose step out of this thread....
edit on 31-10-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
25
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join