It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
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)
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.
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.
U.S. Attorney James Santelle, who argued that warrantless surveillance cameras on private property "does not violate the Fourth Amendment."
Originally posted by Maxmars
because if it were in their homes I guarantee you it would not stand.
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)
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.