Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

  1. #1
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270

    Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  2. #2
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    Got to be some way to counteract the technology. An electronic device detector?

    Wonder what the authorities would do if you found such a device on your private property and destroyed it?
    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  3. #3
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    Got to be some way to counteract the technology. An electronic device detector?

    Wonder what the authorities would do if you found such a device on your private property and destroyed it?
    http://www.spyville.com/rfsigdet.html

    That and a shotgun.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    What is funny is that those AFT goons could have been arrested by the property owners for trespassing, because the land was posted, and held until LE arrived. If the ATF goons put up a fight, while trespassing, could it have been ruled a self-defense situation if the property owner prevailed in the fight?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    This was a district judge. I don't expect the ruling to stand.

    Yes, cops can use technology to conduct surveillance that they could legally conduct in-person. However, since it is illegal for them to enter the property, this case does not qualify for the conditions above. I can't believe the judge missed that.

    The existing idea is that, if the cops can see it from the public right-of-way, they can install a camera on that public property to conduct the same observation. The judge took that idea and expanded it in a wildly unreasonable way. I predict it won't stand on appeal.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I disagree they have the right even in public since government don't have rights people do.

    I don't think proactive policing is constitutional even when it's done with a person we can confront and even less constitutional when it's a camera we can't.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    A nice little squirrel gun is a very effective tool in controlling unwanted pests.....once the pests are discovered.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Fond du Lac Wisconsin
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    This was a district judge. I don't expect the ruling to stand.

    Yes, cops can use technology to conduct surveillance that they could legally conduct in-person. However, since it is illegal for them to enter the property, this case does not qualify for the conditions above. I can't believe the judge missed that.

    The existing idea is that, if the cops can see it from the public right-of-way, they can install a camera on that public property to conduct the same observation. The judge took that idea and expanded it in a wildly unreasonable way. I predict it won't stand on appeal.
    I agree. The police could have used a plane or helecopter to fly over the area, take pictures of the offending plants and then get a search warrant.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

    Now I have a huge problem with that. Cameras placed on the right of way capture that which anyone walking or driving by would see. I don't see that as infringing on an expectation of privacy. Flying over and looking down?? Folks don't routinely get that vantage point. I think there is an expectation of privacy from deliberate acts of snoopage from above. If an ordinary citizen were peeking at me from above, I'd expect him charged with a crime. If the government does it the act is even more repugnant. They can exercise power over me. Such snooping would be a violation of my rights.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  10. #10
    Regular Member NavyMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastside, Washington, USA
    Posts
    196

    Aerial surveillance & the 4th Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Now I have a huge problem with that. Cameras placed on the right of way capture that which anyone walking or driving by would see. I don't see that as infringing on an expectation of privacy. Flying over and looking down?? Folks don't routinely get that vantage point. I think there is an expectation of privacy from deliberate acts of snoopage from above. If an ordinary citizen were peeking at me from above, I'd expect him charged with a crime. If the government does it the act is even more repugnant. They can exercise power over me. Such snooping would be a violation of my rights.

    <o>

    Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)[1], was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace.
    cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt

  11. #11
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyMike View Post
    Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)[1], was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace.
    Public air space would only that space over the public right of ways otherwise it would not be illegal to fly over military installations.

    Also since you need a license to use the airspace it could not be public airspace but private licensed airspace except in the areas that a license is not required to use such space.

    So if it is over my property and/or a license is required to use the airspace (see pilot license). So flying over the freeways (at least in Washington) would not be public air space because the use of the freeway is limited to those who are licensed to use it.

    Since it is okay to view places from a public airspace that would really limit where the police and view from.
    If a license is required to use it then it is not public because the use of it is limited only to those whom the government deems to be acceptable to use the airspace.

    Now when you're flying over private property you could not be in any sort of "public airspace". Unless it's legal to fly "low" over military installations but alas it's not because they are private property and flying over them has restrictions when you may fly over them.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    The installation of surveillance equipment onto private property, while trespassing, is illegal no matter who the trespasser is and irrespective of their intent.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The installation of surveillance equipment onto private property, while trespassing, is illegal no matter who the trespasser is and irrespective of their intent.
    What about putting a GPS tracker on a car parked in public?
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  14. #14
    Regular Member NavyMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastside, Washington, USA
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Public air space would only that space over the public right of ways otherwise it would not be illegal to fly over military installations.

    Also since you need a license to use the airspace it could not be public airspace but private licensed airspace except in the areas that a license is not required to use such space.

    So if it is over my property and/or a license is required to use the airspace (see pilot license). So flying over the freeways (at least in Washington) would not be public air space because the use of the freeway is limited to those who are licensed to use it.

    Since it is okay to view places from a public airspace that would really limit where the police and view from.
    If a license is required to use it then it is not public because the use of it is limited only to those whom the government deems to be acceptable to use the airspace.

    Now when you're flying over private property you could not be in any sort of "public airspace". Unless it's legal to fly "low" over military instaPllations but alas it's not because they are private property and flying over them has restrictions when you may fly over them.
    By your logic, the fact that you need a drivers licence makes the public roads into private licenced roads.

    Also, please let all the airplanes flying into Seatac know that they can only fly over the roads and need to stop flying over my house.

    In the case of United States v. Causby, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the navigable airspace to be "a public highway" and within the public domain.

    At the same time, the law, and the Supreme Court, recognized that a landowner had property rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the airspace above the property. A landowner can't arbitrarily try to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite poles," for example. But, a landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land."
    cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    Got to be some way to counteract the technology. An electronic device detector?

    Wonder what the authorities would do if you found such a device on your private property and destroyed it?
    There is. Find it and secure it. It will assuredly have a wireless signal transmission that can be disrupted. This is exactly the kind of ruling that WILL be abused in contravention of due process and Constitutionally protected rights.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyMike View Post
    By your logic, the fact that you need a drivers licence makes the public roads into private licenced roads.

    Also, please let all the airplanes flying into Seatac know that they can only fly over the roads and need to stop flying over my house.

    In the case of United States v. Causby, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the navigable airspace to be "a public highway" and within the public domain.

    At the same time, the law, and the Supreme Court, recognized that a landowner had property rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the airspace above the property. A landowner can't arbitrarily try to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite poles," for example. But, a landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land."
    I can walk along the "PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS."

    Also a license is NOT required to use the public highways otherwise they would not be public highways.
    http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_...text/hb875.htm
    Hell a bunch of legislators figured THAT out why can't the rest of the citizens?
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 11-01-2012 at 05:21 PM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  17. #17
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Now I have a huge problem with that. Cameras placed on the right of way capture that which anyone walking or driving by would see. I don't see that as infringing on an expectation of privacy. Flying over and looking down?? Folks don't routinely get that vantage point. I think there is an expectation of privacy from deliberate acts of snoopage from above. If an ordinary citizen were peeking at me from above, I'd expect him charged with a crime. If the government does it the act is even more repugnant. They can exercise power over me. Such snooping would be a violation of my rights.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Well eye95, All you need is an FAA Med certificate which you can get for 100 bucks, less then ten hours of instructed flying (about 900 bucks if you go on the cheap) and cheap used Cessna, Maule, or Piper and you have THAT exact same vantage point. Anyone in the public who goes through just enough flight school that they can solo can have that vantage point.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  18. #18
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I can walk along the "PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS."

    Also a license is NOT required to use the public highways otherwise they would not be public highways.
    http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_...text/hb875.htm
    Hell a bunch of legislators figured THAT out why can't the rest of the citizens?
    That's a bill, not a law. This video represents the federal system, but the State of Georgia should have a similar process.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  19. #19
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    That's a bill, not a law. This video represents the federal system, but the State of Georgia should have a similar process.
    The fact it did not make into a law does not change the FACTS that were found while they were researching the case for the law.

    They were really saying that the current law was illegal and just wanted to make a new law to express that the old law was in fact unconstitutional (illegal) in the first place.

    (4) American citizens have the inalienable right to use the roads and highways unrestricted in any manner so long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. The government, by requiring the people to obtain drivers' licenses, is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law and constitutional right to travel;


    A 1979 California case, re White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) determined that

    "… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right"


    Once a law is ruled unconstitutional it means the law has no legal effect and has never had any legal effect.
    Just because a law is on the books still does not mean that is has not been found to be Unconstitutional or it's still there because of the limited application of it is not unconstitutional but the misapplication of a law does not change the constitutionality of the law.

    Anyone who is required to register their firearm(s) must register their firearm(s).

    Would that require EVERYONE to register their firearm(s)? Or would it be limited to those listed as being required under some other sub-part to do so?
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  20. #20
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    How about instead of snippets of cases (probably taken far out of context) that seem to support your view, can you provide a SINGLE case that was not reversed in which a conviction for driving without a license or suspended license or whatever was thrown out on the grounds that a license is unconstitutional? I can't find one case in which a DW/oL conviction was overturned on the basis that DLs are not constitutional.

    Because I can all but be assured that if any court had thrown out DL requirements on a constitutional basis that the appropriate State legislature or congress would waste no time amending their respective constitutions to allow it.
    Last edited by EMNofSeattle; 11-01-2012 at 05:57 PM.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  21. #21
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    How about instead of snippets of cases (probably taken far out of context) that seem to support your view, can you provide a SINGLE case that was not reversed in which a conviction for driving without a license or suspended license or whatever was thrown out on the grounds that a license is unconstitutional? I can't find one case in which a DW/oL conviction was overturned on the basis that DLs are not constitutional.

    Because I can all but be assured that if any court had thrown out DL requirements on a constitutional basis that the appropriate State legislature or congress would waste no time amending their respective constitutions to allow it.
    That is FAR from true.

    You missed the part that shows they are totally willing to misapply the law.
    So the rulings that are being made are based on the legal intent of the law and since the people don't bother to learn the limited intended use of the law there is no need to expose the truth.

    I have proof of this in my documents box for a case that I was the process server on.
    The price of my service was that I would get a copy of the final ruling because I found the case to be that interesting.

    EDIT:

    In the mentioned case the judges did not even bother to cite they law they were basing their ruling on. They made things up as they went in their ruling. It was disgusting. My friend did not have enough money to appeal the ruling any higher though.
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 11-01-2012 at 06:19 PM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  22. #22
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    How about instead of snippets of cases (probably taken far out of context) that seem to support your view, can you provide a SINGLE case that was not reversed in which a conviction for driving without a license or suspended license or whatever was thrown out on the grounds that a license is unconstitutional? I can't find one case in which a DW/oL conviction was overturned on the basis that DLs are not constitutional.

    Because I can all but be assured that if any court had thrown out DL requirements on a constitutional basis that the appropriate State legislature or congress would waste no time amending their respective constitutions to allow it.
    Side note. Please show where the authority in the constitution for the state to mandate a license to use a personal automobile (or airplane) on the public highways.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  23. #23
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    That is FAR from true.

    You missed the part that shows they are totally willing to misapply the law.
    So the rulings that are being made are based on the legal intent of the law and since the people don't bother to learn the limited intended use of the law there is no need to expose the truth.

    I have proof of this in my documents box for a case that I was the process server on.
    The price of my service was that I would get a copy of the final ruling because I found the case to be that interesting.

    EDIT:

    In the mentioned case the judges did not even bother to cite they law they were basing their ruling on. They made things up as they went in their ruling. It was disgusting. My friend did not have enough money to appeal the ruling any higher though.
    That's great that you get the final rulings and read them, now has any conviction for driving without a license ever been thrown out on constitutional grounds by a court without being reversed? or has a higher court ever stated that a license was unconstitutional before remanding the case back. Has a court ever said "A driver's license is unconstitutional" in no uncertain terms?
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  24. #24
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    That's great that you get the final rulings and read them, now has any conviction for driving without a license ever been thrown out on constitutional grounds by a court without being reversed? or has a higher court ever stated that a license was unconstitutional before remanding the case back. Has a court ever said "A driver's license is unconstitutional" in no uncertain terms?
    Well you'd have to read the legal dictionary from the time the laws were first written.

    A driver was someone engaged in Commercial traffic on the public highways. Since using the public highways for commercial gain can be licensed (it's not a right) it's not germane to the right to travel argument.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  25. #25
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    "A driver's license is unconstitutional"
    Besides you don't even have a "Driver's License" unless you failed English class.

    So when a cop asks for your "Driver's License" who's license are they asking for?
    Check your wallet again, you don't have a "DRIVER'S LICENSE," nor do you have a "DRIVERS LICENSE."

    In fact Washington State or the State of Washington (Washington is not a part of the states anyhow) does not even issue a "DRIVER'S LICENSE."

    If you wish to prove me wrong cite the law showing where a "DRIVER'S LICENSE" is issued by the state.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •