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."
"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.
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.
This judge was appointed by Bush, but sure, whatever you say.
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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