Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

[CarpeDiem3 0]

News: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57542510-38/court-oks-warrantless-use-of-hidden-surveillance-cameras/

Sounds like a good ruling to me. People may have a right to privacy in their own homes, but out in a 22-acre wooded field? No way. If it puts drug dealers out of business, more power to the government. These pot growers don't really care about the 4th Amendment, they're just looking for a technacality to get off scott free, because they got caught breaking the law.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I agree. I just wish the SCOTUS would get a case regarding the various laws prohibiting recording cops when they are in public.

[Anvilbrother 0]

You are crazy this is clearly NOT ok! Who cares if you own 1 acre or 1000 it's your fucking property, and should not be subject to warrantless cops filming whatever you do.

If your a drug dealer/mfg that shit isn't staying on your property, catch them when the product moves, then use that as a way to get access to the property and bust the source.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[aphid 0]

Quote

I agree. I just wish the SCOTUS would get a case regarding the various laws prohibiting recording cops when they are in public.

C'mon Andrew. They're "above the law", remember?

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

I agree. I just wish the SCOTUS would get a case regarding the various laws prohibiting recording cops when they are in public.

C'mon Andrew. They're "above the law", remember?

I am pretty sure they are not above the constitution. The problem is someone has to spend the cake to get a case to the top court.

[aphid 0]

Andrew,

I should fax you a copy of the DOJ argument supporting the CBP's assertion that their actions are NOT subject to oversight by the Honourable Court. (Case still pending appeal based on that DOJ defense).

ETA: Four years in the oven, and $72K of icing. Don't talk to me about investing the "cake"!
John

[skydiver30960 0]

Quote

News: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57542510-38/court-oks-warrantless-use-of-hidden-surveillance-cameras/

Sounds like a good ruling to me.

I would have to disagree. For me the issue is that this was done on private property. Doing something like this on state trust land or DNR or NP land: no problem, go for it.

The other issue I have with this situation is that it should have been very easy for the DEA to get the warrants it needed. I'm sure a pittance of evidence would have been all that was necessary to justify placing the cameras with a warrant. Doing this very small amount of homework would have made the case much stronger, and eliminated this whole issue in the first place.

Elvisio "it's like not filing your taxes because you think the 1040EZ takes too long" Rodriguez

[Southern_Man 0]

I greatly dislike this decision. However I see that it is totally logical and reasonable as the article states taht the Cops could already search that land without a warrant. I think all private land should be off limits without a warrant but that was not the currently existing standard.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

Sounds like a good ruling to me. People may have a right to privacy in their own homes, but out in a 22-acre wooded field?

Sounds like a terrible ruling to me. What's the big problem with obtaining a warrant? If police can set up surveillance cameras anywhere on private property, they could do so without any evidence whatsoever, just as a fishing expedition, or to stalk some hot MILF that deputy Bubba has his eye on. If they had any shred of actual evidence they could get a warrant. This is a great example of the slippery slope where "if you aren't doing anything wrong you have no reason to object" leads pretty directly to a police state.

If I found cameras hidden on my property I'd shoot them. Would that be a crime if they turned out to be police property?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

You are crazy this is clearly NOT ok! Who cares if you own 1 acre or 1000 it's your fucking property, and should not be subject to warrantless cops filming whatever you do.

If your a drug dealer/mfg that shit isn't staying on your property, catch them when the product moves, then use that as a way to get access to the property and bust the source.

The USSC already shot down using GPS tracking without a warrent

Hopfully the same will be done with this

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

Sounds like a good ruling to me. People may have a right to privacy in their own homes, but out in a 22-acre wooded field?

Sounds like a terrible ruling to me. What's the big problem with obtaining a warrant? If police can set up surveillance cameras anywhere on private property, they could do so without any evidence whatsoever, just as a fishing expedition, or to stalk some hot MILF that deputy Bubba has his eye on. If they had any shred of actual evidence they could get a warrant. This is a great example of the slippery slope where "if you aren't doing anything wrong you have no reason to object" leads pretty directly to a police state.

If I found cameras hidden on my property I'd shoot them. Would that be a crime if they turned out to be police property?

Don

If memory serves correctly, there's a term "curtelage" (sp?) that is more or less the occupied area of a property. Think the farm house, barn, sheds and farmyard on a large farm.
That's the area protected by the 4th. The fields and woods are not, and the cops aren't required to have a warrant to enter or search them.
This is pretty old caselaw (again IIRC).

And if they can search it without a warrant, then they can surveil it. Using whatever technology is most appropriate.

This is my understanding of it. Andy or Lawrocket can correct what parts I have wrong.
This does NOT mean I agree with it.

And if you find cameras that are clearly marked "Police Property", then no, you can't keep, sell or wreck them.

The FBI prosecuted (successfully IIRC) someone for trying to sell one of their GPS trackers a couple years ago.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[CarpeDiem3 0]

Quote

If I found cameras hidden on my property I'd shoot them. Would that be a crime if they turned out to be police property?

Destruction of government property. Oh yeah, that would just give them another reason to arrest you.

How about just putting a piece of duct tape over the lens? Or taking them down and mailing them back to the police department? Same message, no crime.