×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Federal Judge Approves Warrantless, Covert Video Surveillance

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the won't-surprise-the-youtube-generation dept.

Privacy 420

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

420 comments

wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41832927)

Its ok guys just re-elect Obama 2012.

Re:wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833003)

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 ...

Re:wait (2, Insightful)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833131)

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.

Re:wait (0)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833371)

Unless there's a party out there clamoring for the eradication of the judicial branch of government, I'm pretty sure none of the "There are more than two options!" candidates would make a difference either.

This has nothing to do with Obama, Romney, or any other candidate, because it has nothing to do with the executive branch.

Re:wait (2)

nedlohs (1335013) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833493)

Because the people doing the survelance aren't part of the executive branch of anything like that.

Re:wait (5, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833277)

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.

Re:wait (5, Informative)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833397)

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 [whitehouse.gov] .

Remember, folks, it's a "public-private partnership"; we don't call it fascism anymore!

Precedent (5, Informative)

OhHellWithIt (756826) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833453)

Read a bit of the SCOTUS decision on Oliver v. United States [cornell.edu] (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).

Yep. No RMoney! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833107)

On January 23, 2002, Griesbach was nominated by President George W. Bush to a seat on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. This was a new seat created by 114 Stat. 2762.

source. [wikipedia.org]

Again, here we lose our Constitutional Liberties because of Republicans wanting to legislate social behavior.

Small Government indeed! Freedom indeed! - remember that Teabaggers the next time you put your ridiculous Founding Father costume on!

And if we consider all the billions and billions of dollars going down the drain because of this asinine "War on Drugs" and other "Wars on ....", we would be MUCH closer to balancing our budget and solving real problems - like the Medicare going bust in about 7 - 10 years. The Baby Boomers started hitting 65 THIS YEAR and they're signing up for Medicare.

Re:wait (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833145)

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

Re:wait (3, Interesting)

tylikcat (1578365) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833457)

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?

Wasn't it at least trespassing? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41832941)

Even if the evidence is admittable (which I think is abhorent) should they at least be able to cite the police officers who installed the cameras for trespassing?

Re:Wasn't it at least trespassing? (5, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833025)

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.

Re:Wasn't it at least trespassing? (3, Interesting)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833209)

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.

Re:Wasn't it at least trespassing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833351)

Actually... [toledoblade.com]

A former Ottawa Hills police officer was sentenced to 10 years in prison Monday for the shooting of a motorcyclist during a May, 2009, traffic stop.

Thomas White, 27, was convicted May 14 in Lucas County Common Pleas Court of felonious assault with a gun specification for the shooting of Michael McCloskey, Jr. A jury deliberated for about six hours after a week-long trial before reaching a verdict.

Mr. McCloskey, 25, was paralyzed from the waist down after being shot in the back while stopped on his motorcycle at Indian Road and Central Avenue. The incident was recorded on the dashboard camera in White's patrol vehicle and played for the jury.

The fact is that bad cops are brought to justice. But don't let the fact's obscure your irrational hatred of authority.

Re:Wasn't it at least trespassing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833473)

Wow, you found a rare instance. They getaway with murder all the time, they shot a guy I knew and killed him in a botched swat sting. Nothing happened to the cops, they were just disbanded and sent elsewhere.

A guy was shot here in merrit island about a month ago because the cops went to the wrong persons apartment and started banging on the door like crazy, the guy came to the door with a handgun and one of the cops unloaded on him... Nothings going to happen. Basically the cop is going to get a paid vacation.

Re:Wasn't it at least trespassing? (2)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833123)

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'.

Re:Wasn't it at least trespassing? (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833251)

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.

Re:Wasn't it at least trespassing? (2)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833409)

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".

Re:Wasn't it at least trespassing? (2)

istartedi (132515) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833501)

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).

So tell me, Obama fans... (-1, Troll)

tsotha (720379) | about a year and a half ago | (#41832959)

Does this square with your expectations?

Re:So tell me, Obama fans... (2, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#41832979)

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.

Re:So tell me, Obama fans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833065)

And so the flamewar begins, starting with the stupids.

Re:So tell me, Obama fans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833069)

Why do I consider politics is an absurd waste of time? See above.

Re:So tell me, Obama fans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833075)

By "most believe", I assume you mean your lefty buddies.

Re:So tell me, Obama fans... (0)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833089)

I'm hardly a Romney fan, but the I would still answer unequivocally yes.

Re:So tell me, Obama fans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833417)

I'm hardly a Romney fan, but the I would still answer unequivocally yes.

No. Romney is a Republican. Republicans have no problem destroying our Civil Liberties and taking away our Constitutional Rights for false wars (War on Drugs) and to legislate religious values (another violation of our Constitution) like forcing the hangups about gays as mentioned in this Iron Age book of myths (Bible) - and using Taxpayer Money to enforce religious values.

At least the Democrats are a bit more up front about ripping us off: "Yep, we're gonna tax you more to pay for this shit."

Reps: "Smaller government and no taxes!" Then they borrow and spend like drunken sailors on shore leave after a year at sea.

Dems: Cash and carry.

Reps: Borrow and spend. or have you forgotten (or the usual uninformed Fox News watching Republican) the complete mess the Republicans created from 2002 - 2008?!

THEY got us on this road to financial ruin!

Re:So tell me, Obama fans... (4, Insightful)

Trashcan Romeo (2675341) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833113)

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.

Re:So tell me, Obama fans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833115)

So it's okay for Obama to do something wrong if the other guy would, too? That sounds like it could go downhill fast. Oh, wait.

Re:So tell me, Obama fans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833139)

So tell me Obama and Romney fans: does this square with your expectations? Oh wait, Romney hasn't been elected. So tell me Obama and Bush fans: does this square with your expectations?

Re:So tell me, Obama fans... (2, Insightful)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833159)

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

Doing the same thing (-1, Flamebait)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833263)

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.

We don't know if things will improve with Romney, nobody knows.

What we do know is that things will not improve if we continue with Obama.

Many people here understand probability and statistics, so let's use a gambling analogy. If you know you will lose making a certain bet, but there are other bets where you don't know the outcome, what do you do?

Churning the pot, turning politics into a "one-term trial period" system is a reasonable choice. If your elected official is awful, keep trying new ones until you get someone better.

This sends a strong message to government: bad politics is not a viable career choice. Either do a good job, or find yourself out on the street after one term.

It's logical and emotionally compelling and seems to work under game theory. Do you have anything based on logic or reason?

Re:Doing the same thing (2)

jythie (914043) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833353)

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.

Re:Doing the same thing (1, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833361)

I have something logical to offer, we know some things with Romney will get worse. Is that tradeoff worth it to everyone?

Re:So tell me, Obama fans... (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833455)

No, but at least the media would bitch about it and point every single instance out to blame Romney on. (Kind of like when gas was $2.50 and every day there were 5 new articles on how bad gas prices were. It reached $4+ and scant one or two articles for the whole month.)

Re:So tell me, Obama fans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833021)

Judging from your previous comments it should be no surprise that your karma is even worse than mine! Please, troll harder.

Re:So tell me, Obama fans... (1)

Trashcan Romeo (2675341) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833027)

You can't blame them for not publicly criticizing his expansion and entrenchment of the surveillance society. After all, he does boast (through approved, high-level leaks) of maintaining a personal "kill list".

Re:So tell me, Obama fans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833033)

Does this square with your expectations?

Yep. All politicians will do anything "for the children" or "to fight terrorists", and will consistently give money back to their friends. Obama is no different there.

So, with that in mind, you need try to position yourself to get the handout otherwise you're just paying in for others. So, ask yourself, who's group of friends are you most likely to belong to?

Re:So tell me, Obama fans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833223)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104114/

They pretty much walked us step by step how it works. Then built a story on that...

Re:So tell me, Obama fans... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833049)

Does this square with your expectations?

From 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.

Right because Obama is reviewing all those district judgements personally and he went back in time and presided over the 1984 case.

George W. Bush Appointed him (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833071)

Although I can understand the confusion because they have the same policies.

Re:So tell me, Obama fans... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833103)

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.

Re:So tell me, Obama fans... (1, Informative)

Sez Zero (586611) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833153)

Does this square with your expectations?

About what I'd expect, considering he was appointed by Bush. According to Wikipedia:

Griesbach was nominated by President George W. Bush

Re:So tell me, Obama fans... (5, Informative)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833533)

False equivalency. The Obama / Holder justice department has cracked down on pot 4 times as hard [rollingstone.com] 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.

TFS is lacking (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833017)

"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."

Of course, that's -not- what the article says (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833035)

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.

Also Unclear Where the Cameras Were Installed (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833305)

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?

Re:Of course, that's -not- what the article says (2)

characterZer0 (138196) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833381)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Sadly, the fourth ammendment does not cover explicitly cover your fields.

Also sadly, the government and the voters seem to think that spending taxpayer money on cameras and police to go after people growing marijuana is a good use of resources. All you can do is get on juries and refuse to convict for non-violent drug-related charges.

I have modest testicles (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833041)


 

Stalking (2, Interesting)

Baldrson (78598) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833083)

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?

Re:Stalking (2)

cdrudge (68377) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833197)

It depends. Is the buxom babe in a open field? If so, then yes, he's no more guilty. If the buxom babe is in her bathroom and the camera is hidden in a closet or in the bushes looking in the window, then no, he's more guilty.

Re:Stalking (1)

Baldrson (78598) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833307)

The public education system never ceases to amaze me with its products, such as those who can read "Whether 'No Trespassing' signs are present or not, your private property is public for the law, with or without a warrant." as meaning "Whether 'No Trespassing' signs are present or not, an open field is public for the law, with or without a warrant."

What a piece of work is public education.

Re:Stalking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833511)

It depends. Is the buxom babe in a open field? If so, then yes, he's no more guilty.

Hahah. Try it and tell me what a jury of overprotective dads and ... what's the word for hypochondria, but about crime, not disease? -- anyway, overprotective dads and $THAT_WORD moms thinks of this.

The notion that police have no power the people themselves do not is interesting, but a matter of legal history, not of law.

Re:Stalking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833217)

Only if he's cop.

Well, it's October after all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833119)

Happy Halloween from your spoooky friends at the United States government!

Interesting Ruling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833149)

From what I understand, planes and satellites are commonly used to examine private property for evidence of, say, pot production. This can be used as cause to get a warrant for a raid. Is this either logically or legally different?

Civil libertarians - please provide alternatives (2, Interesting)

drsmack1 (698392) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833171)

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.

Re:Civil libertarians - please provide alternative (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833339)

How we differ: you're scared of boogeymen and think totalitarianism will keep you safe.

Re:Civil libertarians - please provide alternative (0)

drsmack1 (698392) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833401)

Again, you have slipped into theory - and away from the real-world. Specifically, how do those who vigorously defend civil liberties propose the community should protect themselves?

Re:Civil libertarians - please provide alternative (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833341)

Because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

This, incidentally, is why we're supposed to have an impartial justice system. Because those that have been trespassed against cannot punish justly with a dispassionate view. It sucks that a maniac can blow up a building or emotionally scar a bunch of kids, but an all-seeing eye that intrudes upon 100% of the people to save considerably fewer victims is worse.

Re:Civil libertarians - please provide alternative (2)

drsmack1 (698392) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833505)

>> but an all-seeing eye that intrudes upon 100% of the people to save considerably fewer victims is worse

I see where someone would feel that way, but I doubt that those who have been victims of violent crime would agree. If you are saying that by supporting your cause, I would be voluntarily help to create a situation where my family is less safe; then that is something that is a non-starter for me.

The extreme end of the social liberties spectrum does not seem to have any alternatives that still hold the safety of the community first and foremost.

Again, please enlighten me if I am missing the point here. And please address your comments to the questions I am asking in these two posts; I am very familiar with the arguments against internet control, surveillance, etc. Please do not restate what is on the pages of slashdot on nearly a daily basis.

Re:Civil libertarians - please provide alternative (1)

tylikcat (1578365) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833513)

And this is why we have warrants.

The question isn't whether or not police should be able to gather this kind of evidence ever, it's whether police should be able to gather it without a warrant. If you have enough evidence to convince a judge, then hey, you can go look. If you don't... why was that you thought you should be able to? It's a terribly high standard of oversite, but it does provide some check

It's not so much the cameras that get me... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833179)

It's the trespassing. They have to do that to get the cameras there. So now it's legal for authorities to trespass on private land at will? If I caught someone trespassing on property I own, now what? Can I still charge them with trespassing or will they just say "Nope, sorry, was installing a camera"? What happens if plainclothes detectives are on my property trespassing without a warrant, I encounter them and feel threatened and I shoot one in self defense? If I find a camera on my property is it now mine to keep?

I can totally see cameras *outside* the property pointed in as OK, but *on* the property?

Re:It's not so much the cameras that get me... (1)

jythie (914043) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833443)

Unfortunately, historically, if it turns out the person one shot (and would have been legally within their right to do otherwise) turns out to be a cop, all those laws go out the window. They have the right to gun you down, but you do not have the right to defend yourself nor deal with shadowy strangers lurking around your well signed property at night.

Unadulterated BULLSHIT (4, Informative)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833185)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

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?

Re:Unadulterated BULLSHIT (2)

characterZer0 (138196) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833411)

It applies to "persons, houses, papers, and effects". It does not mention fields.

I would be all in favor of an ammentment to change that to "persons, houses, papers, effects, and all personal property".

Re:Unadulterated BULLSHIT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833477)

| 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?

How about viewing the inside of your house using infra-red cameras, and sound detection equipment, and other high tech gear?
As long as no one actually physically steps inside, it's okay, right?

Re:Unadulterated BULLSHIT (1)

tgd (2822) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833523)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Anyone care to explain where, precisely, the above amendment specifies that it only applies to indoor, private property?

They're recording photons that have left your property. If you're concerned about it, take measures to ensure the photons that encode the information you're trying to protect do not leave your property. By, you know, doing your illegal act inside. With the blinds closed.

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?

Parabolic microphones, signal processing, etc. (3, Insightful)

Baldrson (78598) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833191)

Is it ok to use parabolic microphones during this covert surveillance conducted without a warrant?

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?

Re:Parabolic microphones, signal processing, etc. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833515)

Well actually, these questions are (mostly) already answered by the decision on IR snooping. The case here involves the area outside the home, and outside the area immediately around the home. The distinction between these 3 places has (whether you agree with it or not, I have my reservations) been made long ago.

In fact, there was a case of a sherrif peaking over a fence, seeing a pot plant, entering the property and confiscating it, and arresting the owner. Charges were thrown out, as was the evidence, as it was within the "curtailage" of the house, and thus he had overstepped his authority.

Basically as my non-lawyer self understands it, any technological means which can reveal (however granularly) the private activities within a home to an outsider, is prohibited without a warrant. The example used in the decision for thermal imaging imagines that the state of the art could be good enough (whether it is now or not is expressly immaterial) to tell an outsider what time residents of the house shower.

The decision appears to cover all of these cases, so long as living spaces are involved, and not some place that doesn't have such protections.

4th amendment? (1)

Kenja (541830) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833203)

Do you own the photons that come from space and bounce off you before entering a public area? Not saying I agree with this decision, but I dont see it as a 4th amendment issue anymore then someone on the street overhearing what you are doing inside your house.

Re:4th amendment? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833299)

If they were recording from across the street I would agree.

That is not what happened here. They trespassed onto his land then placed cameras there. The police officers violated the law to place those cameras.

Explains interest in drones (1)

Wokan (14062) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833207)

If video surveillance doesn't require a warrant, what's to stop the police from using a helicopter based drone from flying in through an open window?

Re:Explains interest in drones (2)

characterZer0 (138196) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833433)

The fourth ammendment explicitly states "houses". If the window is of a house, the fourth ammendment would prohibit it.

Re:Explains interest in drones (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833465)

A baseball bat and good aim?

The best part (1)

naringas (733106) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833237)

The best part is that it will soon (if not already) illegal for YOU to watch THEM. That is.. they can watch you but you can't watch them...

Re:The best part (2)

characterZer0 (138196) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833469)

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?

Not legal in WA State (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833259)

Washington State law has specific constitutional protections for privacy and audio/video recordings.

We were the state that doesn't allow GPS tracking without a warrant, no matter what the other states do.

So, don't believe the feds.

Re:Not legal in WA State (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833311)

Your State laws do not apply to actions taken by Federal law enforcement officers in the performance of a federal investigation.

Federal officers follow federal law. State protections only apply to State actions, not Federal actions.

Re:Not legal in WA State (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833405)

Your State laws do not apply to actions taken by Federal law enforcement officers in the performance of a federal investigation.

Federal officers follow federal law. State protections only apply to State actions, not Federal actions.

Tell that to the feds who tried to put a GPS tracking unit on a WA citizen's car without a warrant. Sorry, charlie, we have Rights in our State.

Re:Not legal in WA State (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833377)

We also have laws against murder but that didn't stop Birk from shooting Williams in the back.

Let me get this straight... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833265)

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.

Fuck America ... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833267)

I used to admire you guys for your Constitutional protections and strict rules on what the government can and can't do.

Now you're a bunch of pussies who accept this level of government intrusion. At every step, you're leading the charge into a surveillance society and Big Brother.

Now the rest of us are fucked.

Start using some of those guns you're so famous for. Your decline into a police state is appalling.

Seriously WTF!!!! (4, Informative)

NinjaTekNeeks (817385) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833289)

"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.

Biased summary much? (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833297)

I can work out for myself what the decision implies, thanks. I don't know to which TFS gives the bigger insult -- to the integrity of Slashdot, or to its readers' intelligence.

Edit much? (1)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833315)

The summary is blatantly biased.

Now I realize that many Slashdot readers are rusted-on libertarians, but let's at least try and maintain the illusion of impartiality?

We are SLAVES. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833343)

http://thehiddenevil.com/ [thehiddenevil.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelpro [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens'_Commission_to_Investigate_the_FBI [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting [wikipedia.org]

Smart meters reveal TV viewing habits

"By analysing electricity consumption patterns, it is, in principle, also possible to identify films played from a DVD or other source."

http://h-online.com/-1346385 [h-online.com]

Researchers find smart meters could reveal favorite TV shows

"Tests on smart meters made by German company Discovergy show that someone with network sniffing skills and equipment could determine what's been watched by looking at lighting display patterns."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-57364883-245/researchers-find-smart-meters-could-reveal-favorite-tv-shows/?_escaped_fragment_=# [cnet.com] !

Huh? (2)

smooth wombat (796938) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833375)

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.

Will this support the right to record police? (2)

iiii (541004) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833423)

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.

Constitution... (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833427)

America, rolled D20 for her Constitution. Alas, government has permanently cursed you, and now your Constitution is only a 4.

What's good for the goose... (4, Interesting)

superdave80 (1226592) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833495)

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.

They were not on their own property (1)

concealment (2447304) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833503)

Not to interrupt the flame war in progress, but these guys didn't own the land:

The government also briefly argues that there was no Fourth Amendment search because neither Mendoza nor Magana owned or leased the Property.

At least, according to the gubb-mint lawyers.

I don't know how this is different from having the police fly over in a plane to observe these guys.

Here let me troll it up some (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41833507)

Just like when a non police officer takes pictures of private property in "open air", it is not illegal for them to do so. This goes BOTH ways.

We can take pictures out in the public on private property, the same liberties are given to the police. (now this can be bad, with drones taking pictures and never "landing" on private property without a warrant)

But if the law goes one way, it goes the other.

Misleading story submission (1)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833525)

First of all it wasn't even their land. Second it was farm fields away from the house. This was the equivalent of someone complaining about a lack of privacy in a shopping mall parking lot. I'm a pretty strong believer in supporting all 10 rights in the bill of rights, but this has nothing to do with that at all....

Easy solution (5, Funny)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year and a half ago | (#41833537)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...