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, tell me, romney fans, you think things would IMPROVE if that assclown gets in?
really?
funny how you'll throw insults at obama but you are strangely silent about the other guy. who, most believe, will CRUSH whatever civil liberties are still left hanging by a thread.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
"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."
rules and laws are for regular people.
don't you know the drill by now?
cops get away with murder.
literally.
and judges are fine with that. almost always. its the 'brotherhood of crime fighters' that keeps them all in alignment.
they have lost their souls and simply keep their brotherhood going.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.
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.
Go visit your local high school and sit in on a civics class. The head of the executive branch has nothing to do with the decision of someone in the judicial branch. Obama didn't make a cameo appearance in the courtroom. Aside from a judge appointed by the president, you'd have to be a complete idiot to blame the executive office for something a judge decided to do in his own courtroom.
Hell, he'd probably violate the War Powers Act to launch an aggressive war of regime change against the leader of an oil-exporting Muslim country. He might even start killing American citizens with drone bombers. We can't afford a butcher like that in the White House.
They should, and they should have to pay a fine and be fired or face long term suspension. But they won't. But the evidence should still not be thrown out. Telling me something doesn't exist because of a bureaucratic rule is stupid. However letting the law enforcement officers who broke the law by trespassing keep their jobs and not be punished is also stupid. Firing them is a better solution to these kinds of issues than throwing out evidence. If cops know they'll lose their jobs, they won't do this, so no illegal search. As it is they'll keep trying and getting away with it a lot because the only ones punished when they are caught is society; not them nor the criminals. This throw out the evidence solution is a lose lose lose proposition for everyone though. Society is punished, the cops who broke the law aren't, and the criminals aren't either. Evidence no matter how it is found should still be admissible. It is just an extension of 'all data wants to be free'.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
First poster never mentioned Romney. You did. You're assuming a dichotomy where there need be done. Multiply that across 95% of voters, and it's unsurprisng nothing ever improves.
We the people deserve every last thing we get.
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
This judge was appointed by Bush, but sure, whatever you say.
First poster never mentioned Romney. You did. You're assuming a dichotomy where there need be done. Multiply that across 95% of voters, and it's unsurprisng nothing ever improves.
We the people deserve every last thing we get.
Number of times I've copypasted this here today and it still be on topic: 1
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Anyone care to explain where, precisely, the above amendment specifies that it only applies to indoor, private property?
Now that the SCOTUS has decided your property is now public and thus available to police scrutiny without warrant, is there still anyone stupid enough to think this won't eventually creep past the threshold and into your home?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
If so, is it ok to use advanced signal processing technology to covertly and without a warrant see as well as listen through the walls of a home that has EM emanating from a wifi router in the house?
If so, is it ok to use EM emanating from the police car radio, incidental to routine police communications to covertly and without a warrant see as well as listen through the walls of a home?
If so, is it ok to deliberately project EM from the police car --- say in the form of a simple flashlight -- onto the private property to get a better look?
Am I now, by asking these questions, suspect?
Seastead this.
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.
What would really happen is when police are sure you are a criminal they will accept losing their jobs to catch you. This means nothing would change. Evidence collected illegally must be tossed out, or they will continue to collect evidence that way. Ideally it would be tossed out and the officers responsible would be reprimanded or fired.
They want the filming of the police openly with your phone to be illegal, but placing hidden cameras on private property to film civilians to be legal? Oh what a brave new world it is in this year of 1984.
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
"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."
"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."
Life in prison for growing plants, fuck our legal system.
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.
Eh, it also sends and even stronger message that short term thinking and planning is paramount to keeping their job... and the person who has not been doing the job can always make up numbers about how they would have done it so much better. I do not think that making the 'now now now' society even more so is all that good of an idea.
How is this any different than if a police officer goes on to your property, roots around in your garbage can and finds that you're dealing crack or leading an underage prostitution ring? The evidence in the above cases would be thrown out because courts have consistently said that while the police can go through your garbage IF the can is at the curb, they cannot walk on to your property to get to it.
This seems to be the same thing. They came on to private property to search for evidence with the only difference being they used a camera instead of their hands.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
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.
Well, there goes that "difference". You apparently haven't seen Obama's latest Executive Order.
Remember, folks, it's a "public-private partnership"; we don't call it fascism anymore!
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
If a private citizen had trespassed on someone else's private property to install cameras and record others' activities on the property without their consent, they would be asked to destroy the recordings (including any copies) as a simple matter of restitution for the trespass. Police acting without a warrant are no different in this regard than any private citizen, and the information they collect through trespass should not be treated any differently just because they want to claim it as "evidence".
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
I hope someone will soon put to the legal test the assertion that what this allows police to do without a warrant can be done by any citizen, including by any citizen towards the police. This may help to support the rights of citizens to record police officers while they are on duty. Hey, if any property that doesn't have a building on it is fair game for surveillance, by anyone, it opens up opportunity for all of the citizenry. Not saying I like this, but maybe there is a positive side to it.
Light cup, beer drink, thin so chain, neck turtle fat, man I won't say it again
The fourth ammendment explicitly states "houses". If the window is of a house, the fourth ammendment would prohibit it.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Read a bit of the SCOTUS decision on Oliver v. United States (1984) and tell me how this breaks new ground. I was getting my dander up, too, and then I realized this kind of thing was decided 28 years ago. If you want the cops to get a warrant, grow your MJ indoors or in the "curtilage" behind a tall fence (and hope they're not using aircraft).
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
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?
That does not need to be illegal. The cops already steal and damage your property, beat you up, and charge you with "resisting arrest" after dropping the other bogus charges. You have no recourse. Why go through the trouble of making it illegal?
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Because the people doing the survelance aren't part of the executive branch of anything like that.
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.
Telling me something doesn't exist because of a bureaucratic rule is stupid
No it isn't. Thought process now:
We can't (insert evil method here) because it won't be admissible.
Thought process without rule:
We might get a slap on the wrist for (insert evil method here) but we'll get the bad guy.
See the difference? Not having the "bureaucratic rule" in place is objectively favorable to (insert evil method here).
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
False equivalency. The Obama / Holder justice department has cracked down on pot 4 times as hard as Bush ever did, even conducting twice as many raids on medical marijuana facilities in 4 years than Bush did in 8. And this from the President that promised (as a candidate) to leave them alone.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Wi-fi signal detector - $200
Scanning your property once a week for signals - 1 Hour
Finding a warrantless wi-fi camera and placing it in front of a continuous loop of hardcore German scat porn. - Priceless
Some things money can't buy. For everything else, there is the smug satisfaction of sticking it to the cops.
sudo make me a sandwich
Because Republicans never throw money at "law and order". All those red state prisons are actually playgrounds.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Exception that proves the rule.
how do those who vigorously defend civil liberties propose the community should protect themselves?
We have a constitutional amendment for that...
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
The implication is that Romney would "do different". Just because this is an executive branch function doesn't mean Romney would step into the office, find and review this case and personally put a stop to it.
What? Are you saying that the justice department/DEA isn't a part of the executive branch? Think you need to go back and review your notes from your high school civics class.
Seriously, the JUSTICE dept is the executive branch.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
U.S. district judge sided with the Justice Department to rule that it was reasonable for DEA agents to enter a property without permission or a warrant to install multiple “covert digital surveillance cameras.”
The Justice department...
The Department is led by the Attorney General, who is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate and is a member of the Cabinet. The current Attorney General is Eric Holder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice There would be no case here if the Obama administration had not brought one. Not defending republicans here, they are just as bad as democrats. But seriously, stop defending them like they were a friend of the people.
No doubt you are too much of a pussy to call me Teabagger to my face
Says the AC.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
I'm glad you're sticking with this discussion, despite the undeserved downmods. The concrete answer you want is "warrants".
How do I protect my family (within the framework of the changes you would like to see in the laws) proactively?
When you have evidence of wrong doing (actual wrong doing, not violation of sumptuary laws), you give that evidence to police who take it to a judge who signs a warrant.
Or do you mean "proactively" as in "fishing expedition"? If you do, my argument is that fishing expeditions make your family less safe. There are so many laws on the books that everyone is violating some of them. Any contact a citizen has with law enforcement has the potential to have very negative consequences for that citizen and his family. Remember, in the eyes of the police and our justice system, even a wrongful arrest and conviction is considered a win. The police are not your friends.
I understand that there is no way to guarantee the safety of anyone, but there is such a thing as making sure that the odds favor life and safety - and not the opposite.
Yes, there has to be a balance. If police were able to enter your property whenver they wanted, they would be a threat to your family. If police could never enter anyones property, then common criminals would be a greater threat than they are now. This is why we have warrants and rules for evidence.
Now I'll turn your question back around at you. How can I protect my family against abusive law enforcement, proactively? And I mean without moving my family into the wilderness or otherwise removing them from society.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The fact that he would have to break the law to satisfy his sexual proclivities sets up a character test - it shows that he values the gratification of his sexual desires over conforming to the law.
Everyone should value the gratification of their sexual desires over conforming to the law. What you shouldn't do is value the gratification of your sexual desires over the consent of your partner.
You could use this argument to support bans on interracial marriage, masturbation, anal sex, and adultery. Do you really think that if we passed a law against masturbation that every well adjusted citizen would stop masturbating? Do you think that every citizen who failed to resist the temptation to masturbate is too dangerous to walk the streets?
There are many people out there who do not like a particular law, yet because they are a member of society, they obey it nonetheless. This fact alone says that there is something different about someone who is not able to resist temptation despite the risk to his life and liberty. They have already shown that, unlike a normal person, they are willing to break the law for their own purposes.
When a law is unjust, a man of good character will break it. The only thing accomplished by abdicating your own conscience to the government is that you become a more effective tool for injustice. I could go on at length on this issue, but I think it would be more efficient all around if I just linked you to Thoreau's Civil Disobedience.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
What on earth are you talking about? The DEA is run by the Executive branch, the Justice Department is as well... This would not be a case at all, if the Obama administration had not already approved the agents to use the cameras and the justice department hadn't decided to present that evidence and argue for its constitutionality. If Obama thought this was wrong he could tell Eric Holder to drop this case, and it would have been over before it even got to the judge. Are you really that dedicated to your party that you're completely blind to reality?
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
The question I have is, if the government agents in question had to engage in illegal trespassing in order to place the cameras, wouldn't any surveillance collected from such cameras be fruit of the poisonous tree?
Now, if they didn't have to trespass in order to place the cameras, it's a different story.
:(){
Since it's likely the next president will replace the supreme court justices, yes, the president will matter. Romeny is pro corporation, and very much a 'They must be guilty or they wouldn't be under surveillance". kind of guy. Keep that in mind if you vote.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I recently sat through jury selection as a potential juror.
Both the prosecutor and the defense lawyer asked questions openly of us all. The defense lawyer also singled out any peace officers (Border Patrol, ICE and county Sheriffs as they stated) and asked them a very specific question--"Would you, as a peace officer, take the word of another officer over that of any other person?". All five answered that, yes, they would take the word of an officer over that of anyone else.
That, for me, was the American Justice system in a nutshell. At least they were honest about it. Doesn't mean I have to like it, but it pretty much reinforced my own opinion that as long as an officer is testifying, the accused will NOT get a fair trial. Everyone seems to accept the testimony of an officer as somehow more "truthful" when in reality they are people just like the rest of us and just as likely to lie when it suits them.
Interestingly, of the forty people being considered for that case, five were peace officers. With that many potential jurors being essentially employees "for the prosecution", I am beginning to think that peace officers should be kept off of juries out of respect for potential "conflicts of interests" and an apparently inherent bias that is admittedly present in these officers.
What it all boils down to, for me, is this--If it becomes a matter of your word against that of a peace officer, you lose by default, more so if a peace officer happens to be on the jury. That is NOT justice.
"There is the small problem that police officers, by definition of the job, mostly interact with scum."
It is not a small problem--it is a huge problem when we are being treated as "scum", as you put it. Because that is exactly what is happening--peace officers have to assume that everyone is the same scum and act accordingly.
You yourself state that you "have" to apply some measure of circumspection, yet I just witnessed 5 peace officers clearly state that they would not be doing so in the courtroom if they were assigned as jurors, that they would automatically believe another peace officer over anyone else. That is not circumspection, that is bias.
What I would have liked to hear was something along the lines of "I would apply what personal experience and wisdom I have acquired over the years to be impartial and fair.", but that isn't even remotely what they stated. Only one officer hesitated--the others were obviously secure in the idea that peace officers are more truthful then anyone else.
The same could be said about you--the only difference between you and your patients is an education, yet you are given the responsibility of judging truthfulness on the part of those same patients. What makes you more trust-worthy? I recently had a doctor lie to me (and my daughter) when he bluntly stated that the methamphetamine he wanted to prescribe my daughter was not addictive. So much for doctors being different (or more truthful) then the rest of us.
My point is that people do not really understand how much of a disadvantage defendants and suspects are subjected to when they enter the "Justice" system.