Predator drone helps convict North Dakota farmer

[TripleDigitRide]

What began as a wild west-style cattle-stealing case may have ushered in a brave new world of law enforcement officials using drones to gather evidence to put Americans behind bars.

 

Predator drone helps convict North Dakota farmer

 

 

[whitewolf001]

[TMF]

Law enforcement use helicopters for the same thing. They randomly fly over rural areas in TN looking for pot farms. They use helicopters all the time as a surveillance platform to gather evidence. Once someone can explain to me why there is a legal difference in how the evidence is gathered in a helicopter versus an unmanned aerial vehicle I'll start believing this is a problem. Drone implies that these are vehicles who operate independently. There is someone sitting behind the controls as well as someone operating the cameras, same as in a helicopter. What is the difference other than the location of the pilot and camera operator? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Edited January 29, 2014 by TMF

[whitewolf001]

Law enforcement use helicopters for the same thing. They randomly fly over rural areas in TN looking for pot farms. They use helicopters all the time as a surveillance platform to gather evidence. Once someone can explain to me why there is a legal difference in how the evidence is gathered in a helicopter versus an unmanned aerial vehicle I'll start believing this is a problem. Drone implies that these are vehicles who operate independently. There is someone sitting behind the controls as well as someone operating the cameras, same as in a helicopter. What is the difference other than the location of the pilot and camera operator? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's the same, in that you are correct IMHO. My post is more referring to the article in general. Seems ALOT like Ruby Ridge/Waco tactics and the fact he got three years seems bogus to me. I would like to know more about this case however.

Edited January 29, 2014 by whitewolf001

[TMF]

Well the cops had a legal search warrant, so there weren't any grounds for them to deny the police access. They were accused of committing a crime, the police went to investigate, armed standoff ensues. They were accused of stealing cattle and had 3,600 acres of property. I assume the search warrant was to allow them to search the property for the missing cattle. That's just how the law works. If someone sees you commit a crime and reports it to police, and the police show up with a legal search warrant to which you refuse under threat of deadly force against law enforcement, you're gonna have a bad day. He's lucky he got the sentence he did, and he only had to serve 6 months. Nothing like ruby ridge. There was a whoooooooollllllleeeee lotta crap going on there. This guy was accused of thievery, and I assume the only reason he wasn't caught was because he had enough time to destroy evidence. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Dustbuster]

Law enforcement use helicopters for the same thing. They randomly fly over rural areas in TN looking for pot farms. They use helicopters all the time as a surveillance platform to gather evidence. Once someone can explain to me why there is a legal difference in how the evidence is gathered in a helicopter versus an unmanned aerial vehicle I'll start believing this is a problem.Drone implies that these are vehicles who operate independently. There is someone sitting behind the controls as well as someone operating the cameras, same as in a helicopter. What is the difference other than the location of the pilot and camera operator?Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In a manned heli you can get the pilot and anyone on board to testify. W a drone you would need to get the operator w saved imaging to do the same..curtilage doesn't apply to anyone flying over a property. However using thermal imaging to show what's inside of a home has been subject to scrutiny w cases being tossed because of the intrusion upon privacy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.

[TMF]

So if a murder is recorded on a surveillance camera it is less useful evidence than if someone was testifying as a witness? Nope, I don't buy it. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Dustbuster]

Not at all. I'm with you,Imaging is worth a million words. As is a witness that corroborates the imaging with their own account.
It's how it was acquired that that's will be argued.Someone can likely id a field of pot w today's hi res imaging remotely and start the warrant process.There was a case not too long ago where a plane flew over a house suspected of growing pot. The plane was using IR. The IR showed what was believed to be an indoor grow, BUT it also showed 2 bodies/the homeowner and his wife sleeping in their beds at the time of the flyover.
The court dismissed the case because the homeowners rights were violated.they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their home regardless of what the plane was really looking for. Imaging of them sleeping pissed off the judge and demonstrated the couple was violated as their rights were violated.
There's going to be a lot of issues with drones in the future especially when the lawyers start demanding testimony and start grilling the drone operators. Look up curtilage, interesting reading regarding privacy.
Also kinda interesting that anyone could access a drone for cattle rustling crimes..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.

[TMF]

[quote name="Dustbuster" post="1103056" timestamp="1391015633"]Not at all. I'm with you,Imaging is worth a million words. As is a witness that corroborates the imaging with their own account. It's how it was acquired that that's will be argued.Someone can likely id a field of pot w today's hi res imaging remotely and start the warrant process.There was a case not too long ago where a plane flew over a house suspected of growing pot. The plane was using IR. The IR showed what was believed to be an indoor grow, BUT it also showed 2 bodies/the homeowner and his wife sleeping in their beds at the time of the flyover. The court dismissed the case because the homeowners rights were violated.they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their home regardless of what the plane was really looking for. Imaging of them sleeping pissed off the judge and demonstrated the couple was violated as their rights were violated. There's going to be a lot of issues with drones in the future especially when the lawyers start demanding testimony and start grilling the drone operators. Look up curtilage, interesting reading regarding privacy. Also kinda interesting that anyone could access a drone for cattle rustling crimes.. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.[/quote] I would agree this was likely a waste of money to devote such resources for a property crime, but then again, this guy was involved in an armed standoff with police, so perhaps they wanted to use every tool at their disposal to make this guy stay behind bars. The UAV they used was on loan from border patrol, so I suppose it would have otherwise been making sure our northern border was secure from those meddling Canucks, so perhaps there was no monetary loss by its use nor was there a significant compromise in border security. In this case we're talking about a pred, so in regard to location relative to the aircraft, the platform is calibrated so it has an exact grid coordinate to what its camera is centered on on the ground. No worries about the need to corroborate the location they are looking at. I would agree that advanced thermal imaging into the home would be a violation, but fly overs not so much. Not until aerial surveillance of any kind (regardless of platform) is ruled unconstitutional should UAVs be in a different category that manned aircraft. It just sounds scary since it can be so easily associated with spooooooky spy movies. In this case I didn't see any indication they were using the pot sniffing thermal technology. Wouldn't make much sense for them to have it on a border pred anyway. Probably just running flir or daytime camera to try and locate the cattle. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TMF]

. Edited January 29, 2014 by TMF

[Dustbuster]

Understood, contrary to popular belief there's a lot of hoops to jump through for any non mil agency attempting to get outside tech support for everything from kidnapping to hazmat issues. I think its great if an agency can retask a drone to support a criminal investigation. I just hope that it's done properly where it's useful and black and white criteria is established. On another note I would hope a little Podunk cattle farmer and his local pd would have access to drone use as the big rich rancher does..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.

[tnguy]

Not at all. I'm with you,Imaging is worth a million words. As is a witness that corroborates the imaging with their own account.

Imaging is probably even better. Way to easy for a cop to claim he saw something he didn't. Consider all the claims that drug-sniffing dogs often operate off of handler clues also. Humans are way too fallible.

OTOH, I do think it's important for a human to observe an actual crime. Not a fan of traffic cameras. This situation works well however. Drone provides the probably cause and cops go in and affirm the actual crime. Edited January 29, 2014 by tnguy

[bersaguy]

I don't see this as being a shock to anyone. We have known for several years that eventually drones would be used in law enforcement sooner or later. Like a few have said, the witness and testimony of a human can be altered or a human can lie to a court. The film from an aircraft or drone can be in most cases more trust worthy than humans as like a saying that has been around for years. " A picture is worth a 1000 words". If someone is breaking the law they need to be dealt with and if done through legal channels such as court ordered search warrants I have no problem with it as long as the laws are followed to the letter..................jmho

[JayC]

I think the issue is that flying over and performing 'searches' by air without a warrant in either the helicopter or a UAV is bad, and violates God given rights - yes I know SCOTUS currently doesn't agree.

 

UAV's concern people because they can stay up for 24-48 straight and are much cheaper to operate per hour.

 

Law enforcement use helicopters for the same thing. They randomly fly over rural areas in TN looking for pot farms. They use helicopters all the time as a surveillance platform to gather evidence. Once someone can explain to me why there is a legal difference in how the evidence is gathered in a helicopter versus an unmanned aerial vehicle I'll start believing this is a problem. Drone implies that these are vehicles who operate independently. There is someone sitting behind the controls as well as someone operating the cameras, same as in a helicopter. What is the difference other than the location of the pilot and camera operator? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Dustbuster]

Anyone know what the cost is to operate a predator not including the initial cost of the drone??

[partypilot1]

Drones concern me because they will be in my airspace. A manned aircraft is always looking and avoiding traffic because two objects cannot share the same space in time. A UAV doesn't share the same stake in the game.

[TMF]

[quote name="partypilot1" post="1103195" timestamp="1391032530"]Drones concern me because they will be in my airspace. A manned aircraft is always looking and avoiding traffic because two objects cannot share the same space in time. A UAV doesn't share the same stake in the game.[/quote] They still maintain situational awareness in the air as to what is around them. I'm not sure about preds, but I know other types of UAVs stay below a certain altitude in order to avoid aircraft and can't be operated within certain distances of airports. That was just my experience using them in the US. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CQB Elite]

[quote name="TMF" post="1103067" timestamp="1391016574"]I would agree that advanced thermal imaging into the home would be a violation, but fly overs not so much[/quote] Disregard my post. Had vapor lock of the cranial cavity..... Edited January 30, 2014 by CQB Elite

[CQB Elite]

I couldn't find the lower court ruling but I did find Kyllo vs United States where SCOTUS overturned his conviction. Guess that trumps the lower court ruling. I stand corrected.

[Dustbuster]

It was tossed because thermal showed the husband and wife in bed together in a bedroom in the house if that helps. Gotta remember too that every piece of imaging has to be turned over to defense and nothing can be edited out. If it's tainted the case can be dismissed. I think thermal use is nice to have but has to be used right. Imagine what a home looks like owned by a guy who fires things in a kiln overnight. It can look like a meth lab. This is going to get real interesting.

I'm surprised private sector hasn't jumped on drones..the original builders stole technology from the rc hobby industry to begin with in the beginning,let's see if any of it comes back. Edited January 30, 2014 by Dustbuster

[CQB Elite]

[quote name="Dustbuster" post="1103460" timestamp="1391056541"]It was tossed because thermal showed the husband and wife in bed together in a bedroom in the house if that helps. Gotta remember too that every piece of imaging has to be turned over to defense and nothing can be edited out. If it's tainted the case can be dismissed. I think thermal use is nice to have but has to be used right. Imagine what a home looks like owned by a guy who fires things in a kiln overnight. It can look like a meth lab. This is going to get real interesting. I'm surprised private sector hasn't jumped on drones..the original builders stole technology from the rc hobby industry to begin with in the beginning,let's see if any of it comes back.[/quote] That's why we couldn't use digital pictures of crime scenes, etc, in the judicial circuit where I was a deputy. A defense attny argued and a judge agreed that digital photos were easier to alter. That was a long time ago and it may be different now, but back then it was a pain to keep up with film & cameras and then have pics developed.

[Dustbuster]

Oh yeah,Still the same have to maintain the original in its entirety.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.

[TMF]

[quote name="JayC" post="1103108" timestamp="1391019814"]I think the issue is that flying over and performing 'searches' by air without a warrant in either the helicopter or a UAV is bad, and violates God given rights - yes I know SCOTUS currently doesn't agree. [/quote] I could get on board with that line of thinking. Not that I'm completely sold that it is unconstitutional, but I think anyone who has a problem with UAVs collecting without a warrant should be equally upset with manned aerial vehicles doing the same thing. I think it's a murky area since you don't own the airspace over your house, so anyone can fly over it and look down, however, if the intent is the invasion of privacy in a place that someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy then there is a problem. If me and the wife wanna get naked in our hot tub out in the country, we do so with the intention and expectation of it being private. If someone was to fly their commercially bought UAV over us and make a video (whether they be LE or civilian) then they are should be breaking some laws.

UAV's concern people because they can stay up for 24-48 straight and are much cheaper to operate per hour.

I get that, but I don't see that as a valid argument against them. Kinda like red light cameras or cops who hide from speeders.... folks don't like it because they consider it cheating. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DaveTN]

Seems ALOT like Ruby Ridge/Waco tactics and the fact he got three years seems bogus to me.

This is exactly the opposite of ruby ridge. LE armed with a legal search warrant was threatened by armed family members when they tried to search the property. Instead of LE engaging them and people getting killed; they backed off and waited.

What would you have had them do, because they were threatened with deadly force drop the whole matter and act like it didn’t happen?

Drones are just tools. As the technology evolves the cost will come down to a fraction of what it costs to operate a manned helicopter or airplane. If you are out in the open you have no more of an expectation of privacy than if a cop was driving by and saw you. So don’t do stupid or illegal stuff when you may be on seen.

[dralarms]

Ok. First according to fox news there was no search warrant.

But, to me it's the same thing as them flying over my property looking for pot. If it's out in the open its fair game.

That's just like you riding down the road and a cop sees you through your window and can see you have no seatbelt on.

Or around here I hear it all the time on the scanner, a le calls in to central saying I just saw so and so and his license is revoked and he is driving on such and such street, initiating stop, verify dl status. He has already stopped the guy before he has confirmation that his dl is revoked.