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

lacrimoniousfinale
reply to post by matafuchs

 

Would the police have needed a warrant to go out in a helicopter or police car to look for the guy? Would they have needed a warrant to use tracker dogs to hunt him out?

There is no protection when it comes to airplanes / helicopters seeing things in plain sight below. This is nothing new and the fact a drone was involved does not make the act illegal. Unless the drone has an ability to see through walls, which requires a warrant, this action is lawful.

It is close to the plain view doctrine / open fields doctrine under the 4th.

If an argument is going to be made about the legalities in drone use, its up to the courts.

Xcathdra

lacrimoniousfinale
reply to post by matafuchs

 

Would the police have needed a warrant to go out in a helicopter or police car to look for the guy? Would they have needed a warrant to use tracker dogs to hunt him out?

There is no protection when it comes to airplanes / helicopters seeing things in plain sight below. This is nothing new and the fact a drone was involved does not make the act illegal. Unless the drone has an ability to see through walls, which requires a warrant, this action is lawful.

It is close to the plain view doctrine / open fields doctrine under the 4th.

If an argument is going to be made about the legalities in drone use, its up to the courts.

edit on 28-1-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

The courts, then, need to consider this as drones *can be* quite a different bird, lol, to planes/helis:

Deployed without proper regulation, drones equipped with facial recognition software, infrared technology, and speakers capable of monitoring personal conversations would cause real harms to our privacy rights. Interconnected drones could enable mass tracking of vehi­cles and people in wide areas. Imagine the personal information it could gather if deployed over a political rally or gun show. A tiny drone called the Hummingbird, developed for stealth surveillance, has a wingspan of only 6.5 inches and weighs less than a single AA battery. This could go completely unnoticed while peering into the window of a home or place of worship.

Source: ACLU.org

reply to post by BurningSpearess


We are in agreement. I am pointing out that the use of drones is no different than the use of helicopters / planes right now.

By adding functions that would require a warrant for a person on the ground, would require a warrant for the air. This was established back in the day in Washington State (if I remember right) who was using thermal vision to see through houses to locate marijuana growers. The action was challenged and the courts ruled in favor of the defendant.

As for the ACLU there issues revolve around warrant required actions. In this case aerial observation does not require one.

lacrimoniousfinale
reply to post by matafuchs

 

Would the police have needed a warrant to go out in a helicopter or police car to look for the guy? Would they have needed a warrant to use tracker dogs to hunt him out?

The answer to that is "no". No warrant needed if something is in plain sight. If you have something in plain sight there is no expectation of privacy. Of course, a warrant is needed to enter onto private property but the airspace above real estate is not privately owned.

reply to post by matafuchs

I dont believe any type of warrant is needed in open airspace. And if a crime is observed...(as in Police or drug copters)...thats all they need for "reasonable search-proof" to enforce the law.

matafuchs
The point here I am trying to make is that this sets precedent and an interpretation of the law that is enforced at a Federal level. Surveillance without a warrant is what it is.

I am not against drones for search and rescue, or chasing a bank robber or a car thief. These are immediate issues. However I do have an issue with eye in the sky surveillance that can be used without a warrant. Again, it is how one would read the law and in the legal world that is how it works.

That for surveillance, a drone can be called in without a warrant to me is not right. They cannot tap his phones to find him without a warrant. They cannot encroach upon his land without a warrant so why should local law enforcement be able to use one to scout your land without authorization? There was a case earlier this year where a man who was 'thought' to be preparing to create meth was arrested based on someone telling the police he 'may' do it. NO WARRANT.

So, in that same case, if they 'thought' he was going to do something and they used this as surveillance without a warrant, is that legal and/or should it be?

y if it falls out of the sky and kills someone.

Mere surveillance can be done without a warrant. The requirements for a warrant arise from the Fourth Amendment. A warrant is needed to search or to arrest but not to surveil. The exact wording of the Amendment is, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It doesn't say anything about "watching"
And shooting down a drone is a really bad idea. Destroying an aircraft engaged in aerial commerce, defined as flying in navigible airspace, gets you 25 to life, or the death penalty if it falls on someone and kills them.

reply to post by Xcathdra


OK, so for the sake of argument, let's assume:

1. Drone has no bells & whistles technology, i.e., infrared/facial recog., et.
2. Drone, however, is so small that it can be easily fit into a backpack
3. Drone, unlike most airplanes/helicopters, cannot be detected by someone (lack of hearing or seeing it) being observed by LEOs....in fact, it blends in with the many natural birds outside....

Based on the above, by virtue of the bird/drone being in airspace, then no warrant is needed?

So the warrant trumps the right to privacy on one's own land & property?

F4guy

lacrimoniousfinale
reply to post by matafuchs

 

Would the police have needed a warrant to go out in a helicopter or police car to look for the guy? Would they have needed a warrant to use tracker dogs to hunt him out?

The answer to that is "no". No warrant needed if something is in plain sight. If you have something in plain sight there is no expectation of privacy. Of course, a warrant is needed to enter onto private property but the airspace above real estate is not privately owned.

edit on 28-1-2014 by F4guy because: beserker keyboard

Where does airspace begin & end? Especially with these miniature bird like drones? What if you hunt birds & accidentally shoot it down as a mistaken meal?

reply to post by matafuchs


If we allow for warrants, due process of the law, innocent until proven guilty, then the terrorists win.

Don't you get it???

We can't have the terrorists win!

We have to be patriotic and cede all our rights and freedoms!

If we don't, the terrorists win.





MURIKKA!

reply to post by BurningSpearess

What if you hunt birds & accidentally shoot it down as a mistaken meal?

It will be followed by three more and you will be totally screwed. Drones don't look much like ducks.

BurningSpearess
OK, so for the sake of argument, let's assume:

1. Drone has no bells & whistles technology, i.e., infrared/facial recog., et.
2. Drone, however, is so small that it can be easily fit into a backpack
3. Drone, unlike most airplanes/helicopters, cannot be detected by someone (lack of hearing or seeing it) being observed by LEOs....in fact, it blends in with the many natural birds outside....

Based on the above, by virtue of the bird/drone being in airspace, then no warrant is needed?

So the warrant trumps the right to privacy on one's own land & property?

Correct if the only action being taken is direct observation, then no warrant is needed. To take it one step further though I will note that aerial platforms are required to abide by FAA / Federal laws / regulations. If evidence is gained and federal law was broken in the process, then the defense can argue to throw the evidence out since there were issues with the way it was collected.


Absent that, a person does not "own" the airspace above their house / residence / property. The only exceptions I am familiar with would be like New York City, where property owners in certain inner areas do in fact own a certain amount of height above their property. Depending on where your property is located the airspace above will either be uncontrolled or controlled by ATC. The heights of that control depend on where its located, jet routes, etc.

A person does not have an expectation of privacy in public - in this area I am referring to the sky. As I stated before, even a residence that has an 8ft tall privacy fence who decides to grow marijuana is not immune from prosecution if the grow operation is observed from the air or from a vantage point on the ground that did not violate a law in order to get the view in question.

The moment drones go beyond that where the bells and whistles allow the drone to see more than what a human eye could, then you will have a case.

I don't have issues for creating law now specifically dealing with drones, as some states are doing (Texas is one). I just take exception to arguments / positions that claim a constitutional violation where one does not occur. I will concede though that its not out of the realm of probability for a court to take that action and label them as a violation. In that case you will see an eventual Supreme Court ruling, should they take it.

Your residence / buildings on your property have absolute protection under the 4th.
Your curtilage has protections under the 4th.

Anything else, depending on what it is and where its located, will either fall under the 4th or will be an exception to the 4th.

Plain view contraband is one exception.
Open fields doctrine is the second.

Expat888
Under the regime in amerika warrents and rights are a thing of the past .. surprised they only jailed him rather than launching a missile from the drone.

You beat me to it. The next step is obviously lobbing missiles at anyone who has any type of weapon. Even if its just a lead pipe.

What's the difference between this and cops arresting someone for a crime hey see happening in a guys backyard from their helicopter?

Pretty sure if you're visible from a public viewpoint and someone takes a photo of you breaking the law they have all the evidence needed and no warrant is necessary.

reply to post by Phage


They do if you're eyesight is as bad as mine.

-6.25

Make sure someone takes a streaming Youtube.

reply to post by OrphanApology


How do you manage to hit anything then?
Bird or drone?

reply to post by Phage


I played a lot of Duck Hunt when I was younger.

Oh and contacts.

reply to post by matafuchs


Why would they need a warrant in order to use a drone? They wouldn't need a warrant to use an airplane or helicopter to locate these nuts, so why would they need one for drones?

The article clearly stated that these people had resisted law enforcement efforts to resolve the situation and instead, engaged in a armed stand-off with them. What kind of a response did they expect?

Personally, I think it's a great use of drone technology. Which is probably why they use them along the border as well.

reply to post by Xcathdra


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

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 am in favor of them in these conditions (with/without warrant):
1. Border protection
2. Probable violence
3. Missing persons, especially children

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!

reply to post by BurningSpearess

Your SO may suddenly not like ATS much anymore...

I've been trying to think of a way this violates constitutional rights. I can't really think of one. But it made me wonder:

OK so it's fine to create a hummingbird sized drone that can just watch people from above, beside, whatever. For no reason, without warrant.

What's the difference, really, between this, and the federal government merely mounting cameras on every streetlight and power pole? That can see into your backyard and in windows and in passing cars and so on?

The drone could do all that. 1 drone, 1 million drones, who cares. So if the drone is "stationary" -- perhaps mounted but 'able' to fly off so it can still be classified a drone -- is that ok?

If they can do this why haven't they already, besides cost?

matafuchs
The point here I am trying to make is that this sets precedent and an interpretation of the law that is enforced at a Federal level. Surveillance without a warrant is what it is.

Unfortunately, you are making your "point" with an example that does not fit and does not set a precedent for your issue at all. This wasn't just a random drone spying on random people. This was a drone being used to find and capture a particular person in lieu of a helicopter, which could be used, albeit far more expensively, to do the exact same thing. This is no different than a policeman with a flashlight trying to find someone who has just run from the cops and is hiding in the bushes.

Now, if you're discussing random drones patrolling neighborhoods and snooping into your backyards without probable cause, OK. I'm with you there. But that's not what happened here, and using it as an example to further your issue just makes you look silly. It's easily refuted. This is just another clueless guy who has no idea what warrants are all about and when they are required. If you made this argument in court, you'd be laughed out of it.

And I'm truly sorry about that. This is a serious issue, and I would rather you made a serious and cogent argument that made the case for the danger of these things. But you didn't do that. Better luck next time.