OUTRAGED Midwest Farmers Protest EPA Spy Planes Over Iowa Ranches

[Steelplate]

The Pennsylvania State Police fly over the fields in our area on a continual basis this time of year. Whoopdie-friggin'-do.

 

[gallantwarrior]

They sure as hell need a warrant to watch from the air if there is not normally air traffic above your property.

It's called expectation of privacy, the Katz principle. From Katz v. United States.

Case doesn't apply here...

Ruling

"The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a 'search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." – Justice Stewart [1]
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a “reasonable expectation of privacy”.
Wiretapping counts as a search (physical intrusion is not necessary).

not even remotely the same thing.

It does apply as far as the principle of the expectation of privacy is concerned. And, my previous post about HOW it is applied specifically to aerial surveillance explains that clearly. THAT was Allen v. United States, where the Katz principle was applied to aerial surveillance. The ruling said that there IS an expectation of privacy from the air if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

That's where the law is on this.

The drone surveillance should be challenged. I hate the constant erosion of the 4th Amendment and I don't care if you are polluting, growing drugs, or making bombs on your property. The authorities need to get a fucking warrant if there is an expectation of privacy.

And probable cause. Let them prove they have some reason to need that warrant.

 

[occupied]

They sure as hell need a warrant to watch from the air if there is not normally air traffic above your property.

It's called expectation of privacy, the Katz principle. From Katz v. United States.

Case doesn't apply here...

Ruling

"The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a 'search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." – Justice Stewart [1]
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a “reasonable expectation of privacy”.
Wiretapping counts as a search (physical intrusion is not necessary).

not even remotely the same thing.

It does apply as far as the principle of the expectation of privacy is concerned. And, my previous post about HOW it is applied specifically to aerial surveillance explains that clearly. THAT was Allen v. United States, where the Katz principle was applied to aerial surveillance. The ruling said that there IS an expectation of privacy from the air if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

That's where the law is on this.

The drone surveillance should be challenged. I hate the constant erosion of the 4th Amendment and I don't care if you are polluting, growing drugs, or making bombs on your property. The authorities need to get a fucking warrant if there is an expectation of privacy.

Just prosecuting pollution after the fact is the retarded way to keep the environment clean.

 

[Si modo]

Case doesn't apply here...





not even remotely the same thing.

It does apply as far as the principle of the expectation of privacy is concerned. And, my previous post about HOW it is applied specifically to aerial surveillance explains that clearly. THAT was Allen v. United States, where the Katz principle was applied to aerial surveillance. The ruling said that there IS an expectation of privacy from the air if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

That's where the law is on this.

The drone surveillance should be challenged. I hate the constant erosion of the 4th Amendment and I don't care if you are polluting, growing drugs, or making bombs on your property. The authorities need to get a fucking warrant if there is an expectation of privacy.

It isn't a drone. You're making the same mistake Mr.Nick made and I missed. These are small airplanes with EPA inspectors aboard.

Ah. Well, he better not shoot those down, either.

Regardless of whether it is a drone taking the pictures or persons in a plane, the expectation of privacy as far as aerial surveillance still is the same - it exists if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

Based on those two cases I mentioned earlier (the landmark expectation of privacy case and the Allen case on aerial surveillance). That is my understanding.

ETA: In one case on this, and I can't recall which one, the court's opinion stated that one need not construct an opaque bubble over one's property to guard their privacy, but on the other hand, if air traffic is routine, then they better do so if they want the privacy. Seems like some very common sense talk to me.

 

[Conservative]

It does apply as far as the principle of the expectation of privacy is concerned. And, my previous post about HOW it is applied specifically to aerial surveillance explains that clearly. THAT was Allen v. United States, where the Katz principle was applied to aerial surveillance. The ruling said that there IS an expectation of privacy from the air if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

That's where the law is on this.

The drone surveillance should be challenged. I hate the constant erosion of the 4th Amendment and I don't care if you are polluting, growing drugs, or making bombs on your property. The authorities need to get a fucking warrant if there is an expectation of privacy.

Precisely.

And, sorry...correction...it's United States v Allen.

got a link to that case? none of the US V. Allen cases I see seem to be the right one. Thanks.

 

[Si modo]

Case doesn't apply here...





not even remotely the same thing.

It does apply as far as the principle of the expectation of privacy is concerned. And, my previous post about HOW it is applied specifically to aerial surveillance explains that clearly. THAT was Allen v. United States, where the Katz principle was applied to aerial surveillance. The ruling said that there IS an expectation of privacy from the air if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

That's where the law is on this.

The drone surveillance should be challenged. I hate the constant erosion of the 4th Amendment and I don't care if you are polluting, growing drugs, or making bombs on your property. The authorities need to get a fucking warrant if there is an expectation of privacy.

Just prosecuting pollution after the fact is the retarded way to keep the environment clean.

Too bad you live in a constitutional republic, then.

 

[Inthemiddle]

They sure as hell need a warrant to watch from the air if there is not normally air traffic above your property.

It's called expectation of privacy, the Katz principle. From Katz v. United States.

Case doesn't apply here...

Ruling

"The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a 'search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." – Justice Stewart [1]
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a “reasonable expectation of privacy”.
Wiretapping counts as a search (physical intrusion is not necessary).

not even remotely the same thing.

It does apply as far as the principle of the expectation of privacy is concerned. And, my previous post about HOW it is applied specifically to aerial surveillance explains that clearly. THAT was Allen v. United States, where the Katz principle was applied to aerial surveillance. The ruling said that there IS an expectation of privacy from the air if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

That's where the law is on this.

The drone surveillance should be challenged. I hate the constant erosion of the 4th Amendment and I don't care if you are polluting, growing drugs, or making bombs on your property. The authorities need to get a fucking warrant if there is an expectation of privacy.

The expectation of privacy doesn't extend to observations from 10,000 feet.

 

[The T]

Florida v. Riely?

 

[The T]

Case doesn't apply here...





not even remotely the same thing.

It does apply as far as the principle of the expectation of privacy is concerned. And, my previous post about HOW it is applied specifically to aerial surveillance explains that clearly. THAT was Allen v. United States, where the Katz principle was applied to aerial surveillance. The ruling said that there IS an expectation of privacy from the air if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

That's where the law is on this.

The drone surveillance should be challenged. I hate the constant erosion of the 4th Amendment and I don't care if you are polluting, growing drugs, or making bombs on your property. The authorities need to get a fucking warrant if there is an expectation of privacy.

The expectation of privacy doesn't extend to observations from 10,000 feet.

Or 400 Feet?

Guess the Founders never intended on men learning to fly, eh?

 

[occupied]

It does apply as far as the principle of the expectation of privacy is concerned. And, my previous post about HOW it is applied specifically to aerial surveillance explains that clearly. THAT was Allen v. United States, where the Katz principle was applied to aerial surveillance. The ruling said that there IS an expectation of privacy from the air if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

That's where the law is on this.

The drone surveillance should be challenged. I hate the constant erosion of the 4th Amendment and I don't care if you are polluting, growing drugs, or making bombs on your property. The authorities need to get a fucking warrant if there is an expectation of privacy.

Just prosecuting pollution after the fact is the retarded way to keep the environment clean.

Too bad you live in a constitutional republic, then.

What a load of non sequitur manure. All the justification needed to overfly an entire watershed is a downstream test that shows a lot of cow shit in the water, that is undoubtedly what has occurred here. It's enforcement after the fact and still people bitch.

 

[The T]

In any event? i suppose Obama is using Drones to embellish his 'Kill List' on citizens...metatphorically...

 

[gallantwarrior]

Case doesn't apply here...





not even remotely the same thing.

It does apply as far as the principle of the expectation of privacy is concerned. And, my previous post about HOW it is applied specifically to aerial surveillance explains that clearly. THAT was Allen v. United States, where the Katz principle was applied to aerial surveillance. The ruling said that there IS an expectation of privacy from the air if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

That's where the law is on this.

The drone surveillance should be challenged. I hate the constant erosion of the 4th Amendment and I don't care if you are polluting, growing drugs, or making bombs on your property. The authorities need to get a fucking warrant if there is an expectation of privacy.

Just prosecuting pollution after the fact is the retarded way to keep the environment clean.

I suppose over-flying a property will give a before-the-fact indication of pollution? How does that work? Oh, they have cattle, they must be polluting... News flash, genius, if they can spot some indication, it's already too late. But it's not really about "pollution" at all. It's about controlling what people are doing. But as usual, the libturd population laps up the "justifiable" excuse of "protection". Now that's retarded.

 

[The T]

It does apply as far as the principle of the expectation of privacy is concerned. And, my previous post about HOW it is applied specifically to aerial surveillance explains that clearly. THAT was Allen v. United States, where the Katz principle was applied to aerial surveillance. The ruling said that there IS an expectation of privacy from the air if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

That's where the law is on this.

The drone surveillance should be challenged. I hate the constant erosion of the 4th Amendment and I don't care if you are polluting, growing drugs, or making bombs on your property. The authorities need to get a fucking warrant if there is an expectation of privacy.

Just prosecuting pollution after the fact is the retarded way to keep the environment clean.

I suppose over-flying a property will give a before-the-fact indication of pollution? How does that work? Oh, they have cattle, they must be polluting... News flash, genius, if they can spot some indication, it's already too late. But it's not really about "pollution" at all. It's about controlling what people are doing. But as usual, the libturd population laps up the "justifiable" excuse of "protection". Now that's retarded.

Exactly. Now...aren't the drones doing what they are looking for IF the issue is 'pollution'?

Guess it's OK when government does it...

 

[Si modo]

Precisely.

And, sorry...correction...it's United States v Allen.

got a link to that case? none of the US V. Allen cases I see seem to be the right one. Thanks.

I'm trying to find one as we speak.

Sorry....still looking.

I have a link that talks about it, though.

http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1479&context=vulr

 

[occupied]

It does apply as far as the principle of the expectation of privacy is concerned. And, my previous post about HOW it is applied specifically to aerial surveillance explains that clearly. THAT was Allen v. United States, where the Katz principle was applied to aerial surveillance. The ruling said that there IS an expectation of privacy from the air if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

That's where the law is on this.

The drone surveillance should be challenged. I hate the constant erosion of the 4th Amendment and I don't care if you are polluting, growing drugs, or making bombs on your property. The authorities need to get a fucking warrant if there is an expectation of privacy.

Just prosecuting pollution after the fact is the retarded way to keep the environment clean.

I suppose over-flying a property will give a before-the-fact indication of pollution? How does that work? Oh, they have cattle, they must be polluting... News flash, genius, if they can spot some indication, it's already too late. But it's not really about "pollution" at all. It's about controlling what people are doing. But as usual, the libturd population laps up the "justifiable" excuse of "protection". Now that's retarded.

I wish people knew just how polluted we would be at this point without Nixon's commie EPA. Perhaps you are unaware of how polluting a large livestock operation can be? Maybe you think cow manure is a natural product?

 

[Si modo]

Just prosecuting pollution after the fact is the retarded way to keep the environment clean.

Too bad you live in a constitutional republic, then.

What a load of non sequitur manure. All the justification needed to overfly an entire watershed is a downstream test that shows a lot of cow shit in the water, that is undoubtedly what has occurred here. It's enforcement after the fact and still people bitch.

Then, they can get a warrant, as that piece of paper that so seems to annoy you requires. It's called the Constitution - the Supreme Law of the Land.

 

[Si modo]

Case doesn't apply here...





not even remotely the same thing.

It does apply as far as the principle of the expectation of privacy is concerned. And, my previous post about HOW it is applied specifically to aerial surveillance explains that clearly. THAT was Allen v. United States, where the Katz principle was applied to aerial surveillance. The ruling said that there IS an expectation of privacy from the air if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

That's where the law is on this.

The drone surveillance should be challenged. I hate the constant erosion of the 4th Amendment and I don't care if you are polluting, growing drugs, or making bombs on your property. The authorities need to get a fucking warrant if there is an expectation of privacy.

The expectation of privacy doesn't extend to observations from 10,000 feet.

Ipse dixit?

 

[occupied]

Too bad you live in a constitutional republic, then.

What a load of non sequitur manure. All the justification needed to overfly an entire watershed is a downstream test that shows a lot of cow shit in the water, that is undoubtedly what has occurred here. It's enforcement after the fact and still people bitch.

Then, they can get a warrant, as that piece of paper that so seems to annoy you requires. It's called the Constitution - the Supreme Law of the Land.

Cattle ranches are also a business and the operation aspects are open to federal inspection at any time in any way they see fit. Just because you happen to live on premises makes no difference. Tell the fire inspector or the health inspector or the EPA for that matter to get a warrant to inspect your business and see what happens.

 

[Conservative]

And, sorry...correction...it's United States v Allen.

got a link to that case? none of the US V. Allen cases I see seem to be the right one. Thanks.

I'm trying to find one as we speak.

Sorry....still looking.

I have a link that talks about it, though.

http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1479&context=vulr

found it...
633 F.2d 1282

We agree with the defendants that a person need not construct an opaque bubble over his or her land in order to have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the activities occurring there in all circumstances. Given the sophistication of electronic photographic devices today, there probably are few unenclosed locations which could not be observed from some airborne location. We are not presented with an attempt to reduce, by the use of vision-enhancing devices or the incidence of aerial observation, the privacy expectation associated with the interiors of residences or other structures. Cf. United States v. Taborda, 491 F.Supp. 50 (E.D.N.Y.1980) (surveillance of defendants' living room window by means of high-powered telescope from apartment across street is search requiring compliance with fourth amendment).
18

First, the court agreed they had a reasonable expectation of privacy 'in general', then goes on to apparently limit that to the interior of residences or other structures.

Coast Guard helicopters routinely traversed the area near the Allen Ranch for several reasons, including law enforcement. Moreover, officer Gano already had some facts which justified a suspicion that the ranch might be used for drug smuggling. If there is some justification for concentrating a surveillance on a particular place, as opposed to random investigation to discover criminal activity, that factor is weighed in the balance and contributes to justification for the surveillance. This proposition is an appropriate implementation of our precedents in resolving the difficult question concerning when devices can be used to aid the senses to observe activity occurring in open or public places consistently with the fourth amendment. See United States v. Curtis, supra, 562 F.2d at 1156.8 In addition, at least some courts have approved warrantless surveillance from helicopters. See, e.g., People v. Superior Court, supra; Dean v. Superior Court, supra. But see People v. Sneed, supra. Although the issue is not entirely free from doubt, we conclude that the defendants did not have a reasonable expectation that the extension on the barn, the presence of the vehicles, and the tracks leading from the barn would not be noticed and recorded by officers in the Coast Guard helicopter.

As such, the residents could not reasonably bear a subjective expectation of privacy from the Coast Guard's airborne telephotographic scrutiny, particularly where, as here, the objects observed were large scale modifications of the Allen Ranch landscape and barn.

seems they had no reasonable expectation of privacy other than for the interiors.

 

[Inthemiddle]

It does apply as far as the principle of the expectation of privacy is concerned. And, my previous post about HOW it is applied specifically to aerial surveillance explains that clearly. THAT was Allen v. United States, where the Katz principle was applied to aerial surveillance. The ruling said that there IS an expectation of privacy from the air if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

That's where the law is on this.

The drone surveillance should be challenged. I hate the constant erosion of the 4th Amendment and I don't care if you are polluting, growing drugs, or making bombs on your property. The authorities need to get a fucking warrant if there is an expectation of privacy.

The expectation of privacy doesn't extend to observations from 10,000 feet.

Or 400 Feet?

Guess the Founders never intended on men learning to fly, eh?

Think they intended on men learning how to build towers? If the government builds a 20 foot observation tower three feet from your property line, and uses high powered binoculars and telescopes to observe your property, no warrant would be required. How is that less invasive than flying over with an airplane?