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?
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.
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)[SUP][1][/SUP], 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.
The installation of surveillance equipment onto private property, while trespassing, is illegal no matter who the trespasser is and irrespective of their intent.
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.
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?
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."
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>
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_10/fulltext/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.
[video=youtube;H-eYBZFEzf8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-eYBZFEzf8[/video]