Predator drone helps convict North Dakota farmer

[TMF]

[quote name="dralarms" post="1103536" timestamp="1391084597"]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.[/quote] I think there is a compelling argument for the reasonable expectation of privacy on one's own property, especially when that property is so large it can't be surveilled without aircraft. I dunno. I'm not convinced this is unconstitutional, but I think there is a compelling argument there for folks smarter than me to take on. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dralarms]

So what you are saying is joe blow down the street owns 300+ acres and decides to go on a killing spree, leaves no evidence, takes the bodies back to his farm and buries them in a field. A cop helo, or drone, flys over sees the fresh dug plots of ground cant use that to get a search warrant to go check it out? I don't buy it

[DaveTN]

So what you are saying is joe blow down the street owns 300+ acres and decides to go on a killing spree, leaves no evidence, takes the bodies back to his farm and buries them in a field. A cop helo, or drone, flys over sees the fresh dug plots of ground cant use that to get a search warrant to go check it out? I don't buy it

Sure he can. The 4th amendment protects us from unreasonable searches. When asking for a warrant the Judge decides if it reasonable, then later in pre-trial hearings it could be challenged. But if you pull guns on cops that have a search warrant you should go to prison; if you live through it. Legal arguments are heard in a courtroom; not at the scene.

[BryanP]

I think there is a compelling argument for the reasonable expectation of privacy on one's own property, especially when that property is so large it can't be surveilled without aircraft. I dunno. I'm not convinced this is unconstitutional, but I think there is a compelling argument there for folks smarter than me to take on. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

The argument doesn't hold.  Barbara Streisand tried it when she went to court to try and keep photographs of her huge home off of the internet.  Photos taken by paparazzi in helicopters. You do not own the airspace over your home. 

 

Every time we come up with new technology, or in this case new applications for existing technology, we have to feel our way through what is and isn't acceptable and/or legal.  I'm sure criminals in the late 1800's thought it was totally unfair that they could be identified by this newfangled fingerprint tech.

[TMF]

[quote name="dralarms" post="1103540" timestamp="1391085215"]So what you are saying is joe blow down the street owns 300+ acres and decides to go on a killing spree, leaves no evidence, takes the bodies back to his farm and buries them in a field. A cop helo, or drone, flys over sees the fresh dug plots of ground cant use that to get a search warrant to go check it out? I don't buy it[/quote] Well, like I said, I'm not convinced it's unconstitutional. But to play devil's advocate here, I would say that it doesn't really matter what the cops do, it matters what is admissible in court. Your example is kind of extreme and leaves a lot of stuff out. Did the cops specifically fly over this person's house in order to record evidence sans warrant? Or was there a police helo just flying along and see someone digging graves? Those are both questions that would have bearing here, if indeed such an act was unconstitutional. I mean, to paint a similar scenario, let's say that a cop suspected you of murdering a bunch of people so he came to your house to investigate. You didn't answer the door so he jumps over your privacy fence to look around. He discovers a bunch of freshly dug graves. Is that cop gonna arrest you and recover the bodies? You bet. Are the lawyers gonna get the evidence thrown out and see you walk free? I dunno, but they have grounds to try. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TMF]

[quote name="BryanP" post="1103547" timestamp="1391086825"]The argument doesn't hold. Barbara Streisand tried it when she went to court to try and keep photographs of her huge home off of the internet. Photos taken by paparazzi in helicopters. You do not own the airspace over your home. Every time we come up with new technology, or in this case new applications for existing technology, we have to feel our way through what is and isn't acceptable and/or legal. I'm sure criminals in the late 1800's thought it was totally unfair that they could be identified by this newfangled fingerprint tech.[/quote] You are correct, but if there is a violation of privacy I think that would be different. Posting aerial photographs of a house wouldn't be an invasion of privacy, unless Babs was naked in her pool when those pictures were taken. Plus we're talking about what would be admissible evidence in court, not whether someone can post a picture of your house on the interwebz. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk