Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

Want to discuss politics, religious affairs, legal items, this would be the place. Keep the discourse civil please.
User avatar
ChopperDoc
KAC Member
KAC Member
Posts: 5778
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:14 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

Post by ChopperDoc » Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:55 am

Image

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57542 ... e-cameras/

Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras


In latest case to test how technological developments alter Americans' privacy, federal court sides with Justice Department on police use of concealed surveillance cameras on private property.

Police are allowed in some circumstances to install hidden surveillance cameras on private property without obtaining a search warrant, a federal judge said yesterday.

CNET has learned that U.S. District Judge William Griesbach ruled that it was reasonable for Drug Enforcement Administration agents to enter rural property without permission -- and without a warrant -- to install multiple "covert digital surveillance cameras" in hopes of uncovering evidence that 30 to 40 marijuana plants were being grown.

This is the latest case to highlight how advances in technology are causing the legal system to rethink how Americans' privacy rights are protected by law. In January, the Supreme Court rejected warrantless GPS tracking after previously rejecting warrantless thermal imaging, but it has not yet ruled on warrantless cell phone tracking or warrantless use of surveillance cameras placed on private property without permission.

Yesterday Griesbach adopted a recommendation by U.S. Magistrate Judge William Callahan dated October 9. That recommendation said that the DEA's warrantless surveillance did not violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and requires that warrants describe the place that's being searched.

"The Supreme Court has upheld the use of technology as a substitute for ordinary police surveillance," Callahan wrote.

Two defendants in the case, Manuel Mendoza and Marco Magana of Green Bay, Wis., have been charged with federal drug crimes after DEA agent Steven Curran claimed to have discovered more than 1,000 marijuana plants grown on the property, and face possible life imprisonment and fines of up to $10 million. Mendoza and Magana asked Callahan to throw out the video evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, noting that "No Trespassing" signs were posted throughout the heavily wooded, 22-acre property owned by Magana and that it also had a locked gate.
U.S. Attorney James Santelle, who argued that warrantless surveillance cameras on private property "does not violate the Fourth Amendment."

U.S. Attorney James Santelle, who argued that warrantless surveillance cameras on private property "does not violate the Fourth Amendment."
(Credit: U.S. Department of Justice)

Callahan based his reasoning on a 1984 Supreme Court case called Oliver v. United States, in which a majority of the justices said that "open fields" could be searched without warrants because they're not covered by the Fourth Amendment. What lawyers call "curtilage," on the other hand, meaning the land immediately surrounding a residence, still has greater privacy protections.

"Placing a video camera in a location that allows law enforcement to record activities outside of a home and beyond protected curtilage does not violate the Fourth Amendment," Justice Department prosecutors James Santelle and William Lipscomb told Callahan.

As digital sensors become cheaper and wireless connections become more powerful, the Justice Department's argument would allow police to install cameras on private property without court oversight -- subject only to budgetary limits and political pressure.

About four days after the DEA's warrantless installation of surveillance cameras, a magistrate judge did subsequently grant a warrant. But attorneys for Mendoza and Magana noticed that the surveillance took place before the warrant was granted.

"That one's actions could be recorded on their own property, even if the property is not within the curtilage, is contrary to society's concept of privacy," wrote Brett Reetz, Magana's attorney, in a legal filing last month. "The owner and his guest... had reason to believe that their activities on the property were not subject to video surveillance as it would constitute a violation of privacy."

A jury trial has been scheduled for January 22.
"You rarely rise to the occasion, you usually just sink to your lowest level of training."


User avatar
Eireguy
Posts: 915
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 12:41 am
Location: Louisville
Has liked: 17 times
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

Post by Eireguy » Sat Nov 03, 2012 1:50 pm

Big Brother could care less about your "rights"

jackalo626
Global Mod
Global Mod
Posts: 12053
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:50 pm
Location: Louisville
Has liked: 20 times
Been liked: 22 times

Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

Post by jackalo626 » Sat Nov 03, 2012 1:58 pm

Rights schmites

Rem700
KAC Member
KAC Member
Posts: 13257
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 9:47 am
Location: Definitely at my soul crushing job!
Has liked: 109 times
Been liked: 55 times

Re: Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

Post by Rem700 » Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:04 pm

Here we go again. All I gotta say is if I find it I will test it's durability with 00 buck shot.

Dead-OnSniperService
KAC Member
KAC Member
Posts: 1186
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:14 am
Location: Passed out on the lawn
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

Post by Dead-OnSniperService » Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:06 pm

they are gonna see my weiner.....alot....just saying

Sent from a methlab using Obamaphone
WLJ wrote:Keep logic out of this
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Livewire wrote:Pretty sure it's because you're not hitting her enough.

jackalo626
Global Mod
Global Mod
Posts: 12053
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:50 pm
Location: Louisville
Has liked: 20 times
Been liked: 22 times

Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

Post by jackalo626 » Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:13 pm

Rem700 wrote:Here we go again. All I gotta say is if I find it I will test it's durability with 00 buck shot.
I would walk by with my ass out every hour on the hour lol

User avatar
WLJ
KAC Member
KAC Member
Posts: 30498
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:55 pm
Location: Epsilon Eridani System
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 109 times

Re: Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

Post by WLJ » Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:14 pm

Dead-OnSniperService wrote:they are gonna see my weiner.....alot....just saying

Sent from a methlab using Obamaphone
They better have a micro lens on the camera then



:llama:
There are criminals among us who are both homicidal and incorrigible. Their parents took a shot at civilizing them and failed. Their school teachers took a shot at them and failed. The odds are overwhelming that government welfare programs and penal institutions took a shot at them and failed. If it ever becomes your turn to take a shot at them, don’t fail.

User avatar
kokopelli
KAC Member
KAC Member
Posts: 3610
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 4:14 pm
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 17 times

Re: Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

Post by kokopelli » Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:35 pm

does this surprise anybody? Not me, for one- look what has happened to our rights under Osama's administration from day one. The ATF, DOJ, TSA and Homeland Security have routinely acted in direct opposition to the US Constitution, and their actions have been upheld every time by Dear Leader.

User avatar
Wyldman
KAC Member
KAC Member
Posts: 6984
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:01 pm
Location: Spring, TX
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

Post by Wyldman » Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:44 pm

And the damned courts that are supposed to uphold the LAW according to our Constitution, which they (none of them, at any level) haven't done worth a damn in the last 30 years.
IN GOD WE TRUST

"That boy's paradigm don't always add up to four nickels...."

User avatar
Mike
KAC Member
KAC Member
Posts: 3118
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:33 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 5 times

Re: Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

Post by Mike » Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:47 pm

Eireguy wrote:Big Brother could care less about your "rights"

How much less could they care?
:llama:

User avatar
ChopperDoc
KAC Member
KAC Member
Posts: 5778
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:14 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

Post by ChopperDoc » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:56 pm

Image
"You rarely rise to the occasion, you usually just sink to your lowest level of training."

Return to “Legal/Politics/Religious”

×