Reality Check: Government Drones Over U.S. Soil Violating 4th Amendment Rights?

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

[media=]

[/media]

How much more egregious trampling of our rights is gonna happen before we as a country are fed up and ready to take back our Republic!!

Edited June 13, 2012 by ArmyVeteran37214

[Guest adamoxtwo]

Wow....What's funny is this guy's lack of knowledge. Having delt with the FISA court many many times there is something called Expectation of Privacy. This is different from district court to district court. Drones along the border and to support the Counter Terrorism mission is not a bad thing. However, where will the line draw.

[Guest bkelm18]

The line will likely never be drawn. The noose will just get tighter.

[mikegideon]

The line will likely never be drawn. The noose will just get tighter.

I'm hoping somebody might come along and turn this place around. Wouldn't be hard to improve what we have running the show now.

[zapfbroad]

a continued eroding of liberty and freedom

[DaveTN]

Nonsense, you have no expectation of privacy when you are out in public. If you commit a crime you are fair game. Cops can’t be everywhere…. But technology can…. And will.

And Rand Paul wants to wake up a Judge to get a warrant to look for a rapist on the loose in a neighborhood? What a loser.

Here in the Midstate we are covered with cameras everywhere we go. Want to know what the traffics doing in Nashville or Murfreesboro? Get on TV or online and look.

Armed robbers and muggers caught on video and identified, hit and run accidents recorded to help catch the perps, millions of people with cell phones recording everything they see out of the ordinary.

Technology is here to stay.

When one of the drones is used to violate someone’s right to privacy; post the story here.

[Garufa]

By all means, embrace the surveillant society! If you're doing nothing wrong...or what might be interpreted as wrong...what's the worry?

Smile at the camera pointed at your face. You'll want to look your best for the archives.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Nothing wrong with technology, but when it is used to gather information for the purpose of

incriminating people just for the sake of incriminating, it becomes a trap. Unless you are

one of those who thinks that the ends justify the means. Public cameras for traffic are okay

until they put that radar gun with them. Drones may be okay on the Mexican-American border,

but not flying over someone's land and spying on them.

There are so many laws on the books that it wouldn't take much of a leap for the injudicious

use of items like drones to make us all criminals.

[DaveS]

If you are not doing anything wrong...why worry? We have junk in space that can read your car tags....I looked at some space photos a couple of years ago and can clearly see my truck and boat in my driveway. Why would you be surprised about drones? Live a clean life, don't grow pot in your yard....no worries!

They're not violating my 4th amendment rights...I've nothing to hide!

Dave

Edited June 14, 2012 by wd-40

[RobertNashville]

There have been two or three threads like this one recently (such as the red light camera one) and based on some comments from folks I suspect that if the government decided to use technology to look right through the walls of your home and see you doing your business on the throne that would be okay with those folks too...after all, you wouldn't be doing anything illegal.

We are supposed to be a republic where liberty and freedom are two of the principles that define us as a nation but what's the point of using technology to protect our republic if, in the process, we lose our freedom and liberty?

Maybe the next step is a miniature "black box" inserted in our bodies to record everything we do and say? It would probably be more effective in stopping crime and save money when compared to drones - when the black box detects us breaking a law, it can automatically summon the police to come and ticket and/or arrest us...we could do away with all criminal courts and just go straight to punishment since there wouldn't be any question that we were guilty of the offense.

Edited June 14, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest HankRearden]

What is the difference between a drone flying overhead and a helicopter or airplane?

The same information can be gathered by all three platforms and the same 4th ammendment rules apply. Open fields doctrine and plain view are still applicable and have been since the first airplane was flown.

The only differences being that the drone is remotely piloted and cheaper to operate (but still pretty spendy).

As our level of technology increases the use of that technology by the government will increase as well.

Don't want to be visible by aircraft? Move into a cave and never come out.

Some of the same people decrying the use of technology by Law Enforcement will be among the first hopping up and down demanding that same technology be used to help them in their time of need.

[Romad7]

What is the difference between a drone flying overhead and a helicopter or airplane?

Exactly, there are already 100s of flights a day over our cities with the same capability and there is no probem with that.

The government and the people making decisions is the problem not the tools that they use. The government already has the technology to watch every part of your life should they decide to do so. All this does is give our law enforcement officials (most are honest folks just like us) a very valuable tool to catch bad guys and protect us.

I am more concerned with guns in the hands of criminals since it is much more likely that someone will commit a crime with a gun than most of the conspiracy theories spouted in these threads about technology. Hmmm, maybe we should do something about this evil gun technology, ban it? regulate it? That way people won't kill each other anymore without the technology to do so....

If the government does go too far we have enough rednecks with guns (I count myself in that group) around the country to do something about it. Until Skynet comes online and Terminators walk the streets, I will embrace technology and promote oversight on the people using it.

[RobertNashville]

I think some are missing the point.

Technology isn’t the issue; how it is used and who uses it IS the issue – whether it’s a fixed wing aircraft, a drone, 007 in a jetpack or Starfleet security personnel in anti-gravity boots is immaterial.

If law enforcement has just cause to search me or my property (home, vehicle, land, whatever) then they should go to a judge, convince him/her that they have a valid reason and get a warrant that specifies what they are allowed to search for, where they are allowed to search and how they are allowed to search for it…if they get that then bring it on - they should be able to use whatever technology they have available so long as it falls within the warrant. If they don’t have that just cause/don't have a warrant then they have no damn business “searching†anything with any technology.

The mention of “in plain sight†is curious. It generally means that LEO can, without a warrant, seize and use as evidence any item seen in plain view during a legal search or you are in custody when the officer has probable cause to believe that the item is evidence of a crime; we don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding unconcealed items in those cases. I’m not so sure that an item that is “evidence of a crime†seen from a drone (or any other device) with the ability to “see†much more than the human eye would be capable of and flying indiscriminately over private property would come under the “plain sight ruleâ€.

[DaveTN]

“Plain View†is just that. It does not require that it is during a legal search nor does it require you to be legally stopped or in custody. You don’t even have to be present.

[mcurrier]

Some here are willing to give up their rights and freedoms, some here are not. I suggest that those who believe that everything is cool and that there is nothing to worry about until "When one of the drones is used to violate someone’s right to privacy; post the story here" happens, perhaps they ought to form their own country where they can allow that sort of stuff to happen and leave the rest of us alone. Waiting until that happens isn't how you handle the problem. When it actually happens, that's when it's too late to do anything about it. Kinda like when they already took your guns, promised you a hot shower and some food, then you find out it's not like they said, but you're already standing in the gas chamber. Too late to protest at that point.

[NRA]

ahhhh.......... BIG BROTHER BIG BROTHER......... ahhhhhh!

[mcurrier]

ahhhh.......... BIG BROTHER BIG BROTHER......... ahhhhhh!

Laugh it up now...

[NRA]

Laugh it up now...

this could eat you up alive brother.

[MikePapa1]

Look, I'm a libertarian by ideological persuasion, but there's nothing really new here. Most places aerial surveillance does not require a warrant so long as it's visual. If, on the other hand, you use a means other than that available with the naked eye you need a warrant, at least under current federal law. Each state's constitution may give additional protection. As I recall New Hampshire or Vermont allows no aerial surveillance. If the law were to require a warrant for any government overflight that might be very difficult. I mean what about areas flown over to get to the one with the warrant. Are the pilots required to have the windows blacked out until they get to the area covered by the warrant? The Constitution prohibits "unreasonable" search without a warrant.

[mcurrier]

this could eat you up alive brother.

Not me man!