-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras
- Thread starter OC for ME
- Start date
SFCRetired
Regular Member
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?
Wonder what the authorities would do if you found such a device on your private property and destroyed it?
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
OC for ME
Regular Member
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?
eye95
Well-known member
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.
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.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
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 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.
OC for ME
Regular Member
A nice little squirrel gun is a very effective tool in controlling unwanted pests.....once the pests are discovered.
Peacekeeper
Regular Member
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.
eye95
Well-known member
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>
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
NavyMike
Regular Member
Aerial surveillance & the 4th Amendment
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.
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.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
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.
OC for ME
Regular Member
The installation of surveillance equipment onto private property, while trespassing, is illegal no matter who the trespasser is and irrespective of their intent.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
What about putting a GPS tracker on a car parked in public?
NavyMike
Regular Member
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."
REALteach4u
Regular Member
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.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
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?
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
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.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
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]
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
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?
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
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.
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: