First American Jailed With Drone’s Help..and NO warrant

BurningSpearess
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I appreciate your thorough explanations to my hypothetical situations...

You are more than welcome. My advice would be to contact your state and federal reps and let them know about your concerns over the use of drones. Talk to your area law enforcement to see if it is something they use and if so, what their policy is on its use. You can go so far as to speak to your prosecuting attorney / district attorney and ask them about the use of drones and the evidentiary value of what they do.

The best defense against the government is to be nosey when it comes to government action.

BurningSpearess
When it boils down to it, I'm just a little concerned about a misuse of power with these bird like surveillance tactics by the gov..?

I completely agree... There is another thread on this site discussing US Supreme Court Rulings on bloggers and the 11st amendment. My position there, and in this thread, is the courts are now dealing with elements the Constitution / Supreme Court Rulings have never had to deal with.

The age of electronics has changed society a lot, where before only a newspaper had the resources to reach mass markets where as the internet and computers allows joe schmoe to reach millions in multiple countries. Since the Constitution is suppose to be a living / evolving document, court challenges are going to have to occur in an effort to incorporate the latest technology into the realm of constitutional protection.

BurningSpearess
I am in favor of them in these conditions (with/without warrant):
1. Border protection

Agreed here - also Border Patrol has a different set of rules that govern it. In this area you are seeing a sovereign (country) defending against what is coming into the country - hence the weird abilities they have that normal law enforcement does not when close to the border.

BurningSpearess
2. Probable violence
3. Missing persons, especially children

So long as it occurs in public or a person can see / hear it it can be reported and investigated.

As for missing kids - I think they should be the exception to the rule. In that area I am more inclined to tolerate violations in an effort to locate / rescue a child.

BurningSpearess
I'm going to save this thread & show it to my man as our outdoor romantic encounters will cease to exist...too paranoid now...lol...>>>thanks DRONES!

Give em a show... One of 2 things might occur - a repeat flyover on occasion or the "we need to look for criminal activity" so keep moving lol.

I cant stress it enough to participate in government at all levels. Hold your reps accountable... Vote.. let them know what your concerns are and suggest solutions / options.

reply to post by BurningSpearess


Airspace, as regulated by the FAA begins at the surface and ends at 60,000 feet above sea level (or FL 600.)

reply to post by schuyler


Sorry, I guess my final point is precedent. During the ruling it was reinforced that a drone could be used for surveillance and to locate someone without a warrant from an outside agency in an ongoing investigation. Again, I compare this to a wiretap to find information on someone. You cannot do that without a warrant domestically, can you? FISA is very, very gray now when you use the word terrorist or the definition of terrorist provided by the Federal Government.

I am glad that it has created some discussion and things like this need to be reviewed so that it is not something that 'flies under the radar' and becomes commonplace. I am not glad however how some of you simply 'accept it' and think that not only is it not a big deal but it is just a sign of the times.

My fear is, just as was stated before where you cannot search for heat signature to designate grow houses(big thing in FL also), that it is and will continue to be used and local or federal agencies can use this case as a way to allow it. I need some information in an ongoing case so I will use a drone to gain probable cause and then make an arrest since i have no evidence now? It is about our freedom as people who do not commit crimes being monitored with the excuse that they, local and federal officials are just keeping us safe.

tinner07
The lnk really doesnt say anything but lets think a second.

3 cows is actually worth a lot of money.
Lets say you only own 3 cows and they get out and wander to the neighbors home. You sak nicely for them back and he won't deliver. You really don't want to shoot him so you call the police to resolve the issue. Results in an armed standoff.

Thats where the story gets odd. They must have bugged out or something, or why else need the drone?

So everybody against the use of the drone would have what else done? A human sneak around to look for the armed family?

Once you pull weapons on the police you are done. would you rather have a Navy SEAL team go in and kill them all over the cows?

You can stand on a mountain and look down on the Govt. (area 51) but the govt cant stand on the mountain and look down on you?

I bet the guy who owns the cows is happy. I bet if they were your cows you would be happy.

I'm thinking once you start an armed standoff against police, warrants arent really needed

this is old hat

schuyler
In these circumstances would a helicopter need a warrant? How about a police car patrolling the neighborhood? These two modes don't need a warrant, do they? Especially in a stand-off situation. So you're saying here that a "helicopter" that is unmanned needs a warrant, but a helicopter that is manned does not?

I think you need to review when warrants are necessary.

I can't say exactly on the warrant issue of things, I think the issue arrives that with a helicopter the pilot thoughts and images seen can not be placed in computer database to be viewed later. While the entirety of what the drone sees and hears can and will be stored. That is where the problem with drones come in. It is not from the stand point of can you get a warrant, or use it in the case you would a helicopter, it that a drone typically airborne for several hours on end recording and saving everything they encounter. That is the problem I have is the information is indiscriminate, and can be gone through years ago and can be abused. The actual use of drones the way they would use helicopters I do not have a problem with it if it helps curb the violence for both sides is good. I do have a problem with indiscriminate surveillance however.

Grim

reply to post by dreamingawake


In the state of wisconsin it is a FELONY to shoot or attempt to kill a canine. In the united states it is illegal to kill a dog that is not attacking you. The most lenient state to kill a dog is Texas. You have to shoot it on your own property, PROVE IT WAS ATTACKING and KILL IT IN ONE SHOT, otherwise you get charged with animal cruelty. Dogs do not apply to tresspassing laws by the way. It's called a "dog at large" and it's basically the smallest ticket you could ever get. It's not even a crime. It's a citation.

Now how the hell do I know all this? I live on a ranch in Wisconsin. My dog got out one day and ran onto my neighbors property. (These neighbors happen to be state troopers btw) How did they respond? The female neighbor drove her patrol car onto my property and threatened to kill my dog if it ever happened again. Now usually I don't respond to threats, however the woman had her assault rifle handy on her seat and that just really pissed me off. I told her to get the hell off my property and to get over it as it's just a damn dog. She peeled out and went home. I called the Sheriff. They actually offered to go arrest her for personal use of a cruiser and threatening a dog. Both are class H felonies in this state. She would have lost her job. I didn't want to start a war with the state troopers so I declined to press charges. However, I did inform her in writing that I KNEW the laws regarding her desire to kill dogs and to this day my neighbors don't even LOOK at my dogs.

The drone was being operated by the law enforcement agency. It was brought in after the standoff with police started, to locate the suspect to move in for the arrest.

Brossart's trouble began in 2011, when six cows wandered onto his property. After Brossart refused to return the cows to their owner, the Grand Forks, N.D., SWAT team was called in to arrest the man. What followed was a 16-hour, armed standoff that eventually ended when the SWAT team called in a Predator drone on loan from the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Patrol. The drone was able to locate Brossart and his three armed sons on the property and let police know it was safe it make to make an arrest. Brossart was allegedly tased during the arrest.

Would it have made a difference in the case if the police had instead used a helicopter? No.
What would have been the outcome if the police had to move in without the visual aid of a drone/helicopter? Instead of a simple arrest he might have been shot.

I don't have much sympathy for the guy. He refused to return the cows. He was arrested as a thief. What difference does the drone make in this case?