Sheriff ran air surveillance over Compton without telling residents

[Forever_frost]

Are you serious???

Don't answer that.




It's not a search. If a news helicopter could film your back yard, then it is no different for a drone.

Actually, it is. When law enforcement does anything, it is different than when a private entity does it. That's why our founding documents put leashes on government agents and not citizens.

[Forever_frost]

Ever thought about getting your J.D.? Just about every one here would hire you!

I was going for it before the military but the thought of trying to defend someone guilty..I couldn't do it. My code of honor wouldn't permit it.

[03trubluGT]

Actually, it is. When law enforcement does anything, it is different than when a private entity does it. That's why our founding documents put leashes on government agents and not citizens.

It's not a search if its in plain view and the entity has a legal right to be there.

[CexMashean]

I swear Frost needs to start up on his website for all these post

It would be comical, if it also wasn't so sad.

[Chili]

It's not a search if its in plain view and the entity has a legal right to be there.

Isn't there a law specifically banning this practice in TX, absent a warrant (at least when using "drones")? That would tell me that it can certainly be considered a search.

Plain view, to me, would be if a person can see it while located in a public area. Flying a camera to a place that a human cannot traditionally see, does not seem to match that.

To me it would be like using a camera to look into a glove box, then calling it plain view.

[talisman]

It's not a search if its in plain view and the entity has a legal right to be there.

lol. Aside from the fact that "searching" is exactly what they are doing, of course, since that is what surveillance is. If they weren't, they wouldn't be in the air. You have some real problems with basic English comprehension.

[Chili]

Here is a Wiki description for reference. Understanding that wiki is not always the best resource, so take it for what you will:

The plain view doctrine allows an officer to seize – without a warrant – evidence and contraband found in plain view during a lawful observation. This doctrine is also regularly used by TSA Federal Government Officers while screening persons and property at U.S. airports.

For the plain view doctrine to apply for discoveries, the three-prong Horton test requires:

*the officer to be lawfully present at the place where the evidence can be plainly viewed,
*the officer to have a lawful right of access to the object, and
*the incriminating character of the object to be “immediately apparent.”

In order for the officer to seize the item, the officer must have probable cause to believe the item is evidence of a crime or is contraband. The police may not move objects to get a better view. In Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987), the officer was found to have acted unlawfully. While investigating a shooting, the officer moved, without probable cause, stereo equipment to record the serial numbers. The plain view doctrine has also been expanded to include the sub doctrines of plain feel, plain smell, and plain hearing.[1]

In Horton v. California 496 U.S. 128 (1990), the court eliminated the requirement that the discovery of evidence in plain view be inadvertent, a requirement that had led to difficulties in defining "inadvertent discovery."

[Baron Von Crowder]

Isn't there a law specifically banning this practice in TX, absent a warrant (at least when using "drones")? That would tell me that it can certainly be considered a search.

Plain view, to me, would be if a person can see it while located in a public area. Flying a camera to a place that a human cannot traditionally see, does not seem to match that.

To me it would be like using a camera to look into a glove box, then calling it plain view.

There have been cases where police used heat signatures from thermal imaging in helicopters to find grow operations in attics. They have to have a warrant for that. I do know that the dea and other agencies use airplanes to aircraft to look for drugs in fields, and even in a couple of cases to follow shipments to/from the production facility.

There's a big grey area here. The article says the area already has video surveillance, so I fail to see why this is any different than cameras posted up around the city.

[CJ-95GT]

I'd be pissed for the simple reason that my tax dollars paid for that crap.

[Chili]

There have been cases where police used heat signatures from thermal imaging in helicopters to find grow operations in attics. They have to have a warrant for that. I do know that the dea and other agencies use airplanes to aircraft to look for drugs in fields, and even in a couple of cases to follow shipments to/from the production facility.

There's a big grey area here. The article says the area already has video surveillance, so I fail to see why this is any different than cameras posted up around the city.

If an officer is in the airplane / helicopter, then that would meet the criteria (according to Wiki). Using a drone does not.

As to your second point, cameras pointing to things visible to the general public. There is no expectation of privacy. A camera mounted to a drone or rc car or something, that can take the camera to an area where there is an expectation of privacy, is a whole different ball of wax.

My only concern would be warrant-less searches.

[CJ-95GT]

My only concern would be warrant-less searches.

I agree, but the popo can just say they smelled an illegal substance which would negate the need for a s/w.

[Forever_frost]

It's not a search if its in plain view and the entity has a legal right to be there.

Unless it is my backyard, behind my privacy fence.

[Chili]

I agree, but the popo can just say they smelled an illegal substance which would negate the need for a s/w.

Haha.. Of course, I was referring to the applicability as it relates to drones, but yeah, I hate that "out" they have available.

[03trubluGT]

lol. Aside from the fact that "searching" is exactly what they are doing, of course, since that is what surveillance is. If they weren't, they wouldn't be in the air. You have some real problems with basic English comprehension.

Jesus.

So you want cops to sit in a substation and only respond to calls? No preventative patrol?

[03trubluGT]

Unless it is my backyard, behind my privacy fence.

Does your fence keep out satellites too?