Court Upholds Domestic Drone Use in Arrest of American Citizen

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Hey I have to applaud your response. Made me smile. Thanks. I do see your point loud and clear. Folks do know that private parties also have authorization to operate these drones over US soil, right? Where is our American right to privacy going? Maybe it never existed...? I'm certain it was a thing at one time long ago. A tragedy is what I call it. Pure and simple. Losing one freedom at a time, slowly like how the night creeps in at the end of the day.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Posse comitatus? Most likely though, like the rest of our spy BS, they will be run by private companies, so they can spy without following the guidelines that restrict LEO spying.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I had pictures of a truck on my property that he had to pass 2 No Trespassing signs to get to, the mans face, a clear picture of the tag number and a clear picture of my stolen property on the back of the truck and the local DA's office let them go for "insufficient evidence".

Originally posted by xuenchen

A wee bit touchy today are we ?

I'm not the one upset.

I am neither touchy nor upset.
That all seems pretty on topic though.

You misunderstood the entire court precedent.

No. I did not agree with you.

Asked and answered.

No, you still have not actually answered what I asked.

What's Your point anyway ?

It is in the questions you are avoiding I guess.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Xuenchen, I see you have met nunyadammm

Don't worry you get used to him/her after a while.

So....

instead of posting on topic, you all gossip like schoolgirls and the mods here are ok with that?

Actually in future you'll be arrested by a robot mocking J and if you don't do what it tells you then it will just follow you around while it radios your position to a robo cop.swat team of terminators that will make you pay for your insubordination you worth piece of garbage slave boy! Obey your robot!

reply to post by nunyadammm

:shk:
Asked and answered ....

see page 1 and read.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well let's see.

The article states that this is a "first" drone use.

And the DHS was somehow involved.

And no warrant.

The point seems to be that this case is setting a precedent.

Helicopters have human eyes.

Drones use cameras and recordings.

Perhaps a drone camera is now an "eyewitness" ???

And,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Keep in mind that these drones like the one in question may not have been under the direct control of a law enforcement officer !!!

If the one in question was "operated" by military personnel, that person may not have had local jurisdiction.

And we really don't know if any drones "owned" by municipalities or States are or will be under the direct control of a sworn police officer.

Police helicopters ARE under direct control of Police.

Big difference in laws.

reply to post by xuenchen


I guess you are having a hard time understanding what was actually "asked."
Someone else apparently asked you something you seem to have answered. That does not apply to what I actually asked.

Originally posted by nunyadammm

Originally posted by xuenchen


The Judge says the drone had no bearing on the "charges".

How did the drone alter things?
Other than your opinion of it being used.

:shk:
Asked and answered ....

All of the above.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The drone Was used by suggestion of DHS.

If the drone wasn't used at all, there would be no issue with the drone being used.

Originally posted by xuenchen
And the DHS was somehow involved.

And no warrant.

What would you need a warrant for? That makes no sense at all. Helicopters don't need warrants. Looking over your fence requires no warrant. You are creating a double standard which only applies to drones.

Helicopters have human eyes.

Drones use cameras and recordings.

Perhaps a drone camera is now an "eyewitness" ???

Are you claiming that police helicopters operate by human eyes? Ever heard of flir? Human eyes are very limited.
Also video recordings have already been used as evidence for ages. So it's somehow different when it's from a drone?

Keep in mind that these drones like the one in question may not have been under the direct control of a law enforcement officer !!!

If the one in question was "operated" by military personnel, that person may not have had local jurisdiction.

Can you quote the law that says it has to be under direct control of LEO or are you just making crap up?

Originally posted by xuenchen

:shk:
Asked and answered ....

All of the above.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The drone Was used by suggestion of DHS.

If the drone wasn't used at all, there would be no issue with the drone being used.

I get it now. You have some sort of problem functioning as a normal adult. Fine. NO IT HAS NOT BEEN ANSWERED. Every BS answer you gave me, I swatted down. All you have done in your own defense is repeat "asked and answered" over again like some kind of retarded POW.

reply to post by xuenchen


Many "erudite" forums have discussed the US Government's planned use of drones to institute surveillance of its own citizens in situations where martial law or civil disobedience could result from financial calamity. It would seem that the use of non-lethal, targeted EMP by US citizen patriots to protect their expectation of privacy would be a good tool against unconstitutional drone surveillance. Additionally, to combat domestically-targetted drone swarming (that Boeing is currently engineering) would take an effective, narrow pattern of EMP to avoid harm to citizens but be effective at foiling violations of rightful privacy. Do any such devices exist for purchase by the American citizen who wishes to protect themselves from misguided governmental privacy incursions?

Originally posted by edvonrichtoven
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Many "erudite" forums have discussed the US Government's planned use of drones to institute surveillance of its own citizens in situations where martial law or civil disobedience could result from financial calamity. It would seem that the use of non-lethal, targeted EMP by US citizen patriots to protect their expectation of privacy would be a good tool against unconstitutional drone surveillance. Additionally, to combat domestically-targetted drone swarming (that Boeing is currently engineering) would take an effective, narrow pattern of EMP to avoid harm to citizens but be effective at foiling violations of rightful privacy. Do any such devices exist for purchase by the American citizen who wishes to protect themselves from misguided governmental privacy incursions?

""Do any such devices exist for purchase by the American citizen who wishes to protect themselves from misguided governmental privacy incursions?""

I don't know.

Maybe an enhanced long range stun gun ?

Originally posted by xuenchen


""Do any such devices exist for purchase by the American citizen who wishes to protect themselves from misguided governmental privacy incursions?""

I don't know.

Maybe an enhanced long range stun gun ?

Let me know when you have your own nuclear weapons.

I don't see the problem; the case is not going to be thrown out even if surveillance was illegal because the surveillance isn't being used as evidence of anything. It's not like a drone just happened to be flying over when he stole the cows and so the police went out and charged him (this I would have a problem with, assuming the police didn't get a warrant). The police just used a drone for recon to apprehend a suspect who is being charged for the crime he allegedly committed. At most, the precedent set here would be that drones when used for reconnaissance or surveillance of fleeing/resisting suspects are OK. Arguing that this is a slippery slope and one day drones could be used for surveilling ordinary citizens without a warrant is pointless because it's not like, if a case concerning warrantless drone surveillance on ordinary citizens came up, a judge would have to throw discretion out the window and fold to the counsel that brings up this case and says "strare decisis!".

As for complaints about "what if they're spying on you while you take a shower!" or similar, well, that also makes little sense here as voyeurism and/or stalking are illegal, even if you're a law enforcement officer. While charges may not be brought up for the LEO pervert simply because no one knows he's spying, this decision won't legalize surveillance where there's an expectation of privacy, regardless of whose on the other side of the drone.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

One day they are helping catch cattle thiefs, the next day some sicko at drone headquarters is watching live porn via the drone's thermal infrared censors while you and your wife do the wild thing.

WAIT!?!?! You and your wife are in porn? NICE! That pay well?

That an easy job to get up for?

I simply could not resist! Sorry!

Back on topic, I can see why the court didn't want to hear and accept this as a reason. The case was started by an illegal act, it wasn't as if they were just buzzing about looking to make $/busts/watching the porn scene being made with the misus. If there had been a warrantless search the case would be different to my eyes.

FWIW if I was dug in like a tick, knownig I was looking @ some serious time and a drone was buzzing me... you know I'd take shots @ it. Fed slams are better than county or state slams by a long shot!

Derek