Slashdot Mirror
Federal Judge Approves Warrantless, Covert Video Surveillance
Penurious Penguin writes "Your curtilage may be your castle, but 'open fields' are open game for law-enforcement and surveillance technology. Whether 'No Trespassing' signs are present or not, your private property is public for the law, with or without a warrant. What the police cannot do, their cameras can — without warrant or court oversight. An article at CNET recounts a case involving the DEA, a federal judge, and two defendants (since charged) who were subjected to video surveillance on private property without a warrant. Presumably, the 4th Amendment suffers an obscure form of agoraphobia further elucidated in the article."
So, when a psycho decides a buxom babe secretly, subconsciously, loves him and he engages in covert video surveillance without a warrant, is he no more guilty of "stalking" than is a "law"-enforcement officer engaging in covert video surveillance without a warrent?
Seastead this.
You guys sometimes have good points and all; no one wants someone spying on them - right? But people would probably listen to you a bit more if you explained how *communities* can both protect the rights of innocent people, as well as deal with potential threats to life and liberty.
A lot of the things you are for and against sound great in theory, but not so much when it comes out that the person next door to you has been quietly collecting explosives for the last decade. Or has a long record of molesting children.
Without referencing the government or law enforcement; how is the individual going to protect themselves and their families against those who would do them harm? It seems that the only things you agree with are reactive, and not protective. I personally would find little solace in the conviction of someone who murdered my family. I'd rather prevent it from happening.
Can any of you who vigorously push for "freedom" tell me how your efforts will directly help to make things safer for my family?
Because *that* is my goal. If it is not yours, please care to share how we differ.
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
The worst part about the judges is that most of them are former prosecutors. Most cases I've paid any attention to where the cop is on trial, the cop will waive his right to a jury and we end up with the cop, the prosecutor, and the former prosecutor all deciding what to do. I've come to the conclusion that there is a communal right to a jury trial. For serious crimes where the accused wants to waive their right to a jury, there should be some publicly elected official that has to approve the request, my theory being that the politician will not want to create a powerful weapon against him- or herself in the next election. Thus, the police will be less likely to commit such heinous crimes.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
Its ok guys just re-elect Obama 2012.
Yep because this went up to Obama's desk and he looked at it and he said, "Yes, okay do this." and then he signed off on this. And now I'm to believe that Romney will not do this ...
Pfft. Obama. Romney. Pfft.
The difference is with Obama it's the government/public agencies doing this, while under Romney it'll be private sector doing it and billing anyone who wants to know what they saw.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
As the article explains: open fields, even when attached to homes, aren't normally covered by the 4th Amendment, because they're not in the plain-terms of the language. The 4th Amendment doesn't protect all property, but rather just the enumerated properties and spaces. Curtilage - the land immediately attached to a home - is sometimes covered, but separate fields such as these aren't.
The article itself is very odd. For example they open with:
Police are allowed in some circumstances to install hidden surveillance cameras on private property without obtaining a search warrant, a federal judge said yesterday.
[emphasis mine] Despite the fact that I can't find any reference to this in any of the quotes or any of the links in their article. In fact, the quote I can find in the article says:
"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.
My interpretation of this is that they think they can set up video cameras on public property to record activity on your personal property. Still not a great thing to have happen but not as bad as them installing something on your property without you knowing. Can anyone find where they explain further if the devices themselves were installed on the defendant's property?
My work here is dung.
So, do you have an actual suggestion? Both major parties at this point have pretty egregious records when it comes to civil liberties. Neither not voting nor voting for third parties seem likely to affect the situation in a useful manner. ...which would then mean that the ways to address the situation are probably things other than voting. So why did you post?
U.S. Attorney James Santelle, who argued that warrantless surveillance cameras on private property "does not violate the Fourth Amendment."
Well, Mr. U.S. Attorney James Santelle, I'll be over at your house in a few minutes with my camera to start recording what you do on your property.
I get the curtilage thing, but isn't this just outright trespasing? It was posted. If a private citizen walked up on this guy's land, he could charge them with trespassing couldn't he? I don't recall reading anywhere that an officer is exempt from this.
Further into this, they put a camera there. What would happen to that private citizen if he installed a camera on the other side of that No Trespassing sign? It's "in plain sight" so I don't imagine Invasion of Privacy in the strictest terms would hold up, but it'd certainly be creepy to hear that Joe Citizen can bug my property legally?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Well, another difference is that "progressives" will remain absolutely dead silent while Obama guts the civil rights portions of the Constitution, but if Romney is elected and tries to do the same thing, then they'll complain about. So ironically, civil rights are in less danger under the GOP.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good