posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:04 AM
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
Agree/disagree with my interpretation?
(visit the link for the full news article)