Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

[The Annoyed Man]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57542 ... e-cameras/
Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras
In latest case to test how technological developments alter Americans' privacy, federal court sides with Justice Department on police use of concealed surveillance cameras on private property.
by Declan McCullagh October 30, 2012 10:45 AM PDT

Police are allowed in some circumstances to install hidden surveillance cameras on private property without obtaining a search warrant, a federal judge said yesterday.

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.

This is the latest case to highlight how advances in technology are causing the legal system to rethink how Americans' privacy rights are protected by law. In January, the Supreme Court rejected warrantless GPS tracking after previously rejecting warrantless thermal imaging, but it has not yet ruled on warrantless cell phone tracking or warrantless use of surveillance cameras placed on private property without permission.

Yesterday Griesbach adopted a recommendation by U.S. Magistrate Judge William Callahan dated October 9. That recommendation said that the DEA's warrantless surveillance did not violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and requires that warrants describe the place that's being searched.

"The Supreme Court has upheld the use of technology as a substitute for ordinary police surveillance," Callahan wrote.

Just to review, here's what the 4th Amendment says:

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.

So I guess that begs the question..... if you find a DEA agent skulking around your back yard in the middle of the night without a warrant, he does not properly identify himself, and he comes at you and you feel threatened, can you shoot him?

[Thomas]

So I guess that begs the question..... if you find a DEA agent skulking around your back yard in the middle of the night without a warrant, he does not properly identify himself, and he comes at you and you feel threatened, can you shoot him?

That's what I don't get. Without a warrant, isn't that trespassing, and installing cameras - littering?

[C-dub]

Wow! I gotta believe that this one will be overturned by the SCOTUS. I'm shocked that a court actually upheld this in the first place.

[Thomas]

Wow! I gotta believe that this one will be overturned by the SCOTUS. I'm shocked that a court actually upheld this in the first place.

This seems to be inline with no-knock warrants. Completely dangerous IMO. Does anyone know if the legality of no-knock warrants has been taken up in the courts?

[clarionite]

I really can't see this standing. And the judge who made the ruling needs to be removed.

[LabRat]

If I find the cameras on my rural property (and its otherwise safe to do so), can I shoot the cameras as target practice?

My .308 should easily reach out to 600 yards. Might make the shots a little more interesting than paper or steel.

LabRat

[Heartland Patriot]

My conservative side really doesn't like drug dealers and doesn't care if bad things happen to them. That said, my libertarian side doesn't like the government, any level of government, violating the Constitution in what seems to be a blatant manner like that. If they have reason to suspect drug dealing, manufacturing, growing, whatever, they need to get WARRANTS, then proceed. Not sneakily place cameras like Big Brother and spy on folks. If they do it to the bad guys long enough, people will get "used to it" and then they will be able to do it to ANYONE, for any reason. Not a good thing, in the very least, no matter how many drug dealers they bust.

[The Annoyed Man]

My conservative side really doesn't like drug dealers and doesn't care if bad things happen to them. That said, my libertarian side doesn't like the government, any level of government, violating the Constitution in what seems to be a blatant manner like that. If they have reason to suspect drug dealing, manufacturing, growing, whatever, they need to get WARRANTS, then proceed. Not sneakily place cameras like Big Brother and spy on folks. If they do it to the bad guys long enough, people will get "used to it" and then they will be able to do it to ANYONE, for any reason. Not a good thing, in the very least, no matter how many drug dealers they bust.

Exactly. I'm not libertarian enough to have much sympathy for those engaged in the drug trade.....even if they're growing a small amount for their own use.... because as the law currently stands, that is illegal. The problem with these kinds of rulings are that a nameless federal agent no longer needs to have evidence to put before a judge to get permission to gather more evidence which will then be used to arrest and charge you. With this ruling, if that agent doesn't like the cut of your jib, or doesn't like your politics or the way you wear your hair, he can legally sneak onto your property and try and dig up dirt on you. Worse yet, he doesn't have to stay there and observe. He simply sets up the law enforcement version of a game camera.

I have heard it said that, at this point in our history, there are so many laws on the books that the average honest and upright citizen violates several laws each day without realizing it, just during the normal course of his day. In such an environment, and with such rulings like the one above, is anybody truly a free citizen anymore?

[anygunanywhere]

All of you worthless citizens just need to move along and behave yourselves. There is nothing to see here.

Anygunanywhere

[Jaguar]

I have heard it said that, at this point in our history, there are so many laws on the books that the average honest and upright citizen violates several laws each day without realizing it, just during the normal course of his day. In such an environment, and with such rulings like the one above, is anybody truly a free citizen anymore?

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

I know, your favorite author.

[VMI77]

If I find the cameras on my rural property (and its otherwise safe to do so), can I shoot the cameras as target practice?

My .308 should easily reach out to 600 yards. Might make the shots a little more interesting than paper or steel.

LabRat

They are installing the cameras in secret so they are unlikely to have signs touting "Property of US Government." How then would you know who put the cameras there? Especially if you're not doing anything illegal, you'd have no reason to assume the government put up cameras on your private property. I think you could do whatever you want with them since they were basically abandoned on your property. Not sure what I'd do....I just might take them down and turn them over to the County Sheriff and ask that this trespass and invasion of property be investigated....maybe have the local "news" come by and see if they didn't want to do a story on it.

[i8godzilla]

I seem to recall aa case where law enforcement went on private property and placed a GPS tracker on a car without a warrant. IIRC this was ruled as ubconstitutional. How is a camera any different?

http://m.washingtonpost.com/politics/su ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[3dfxMM]

They are probably pretty nice cameras. Sounds like they would make a great addition to a home security system.

[BigGuy]

You guys are just so cute when you assume the law applies to the Government.

[Heartland Patriot]

You guys are just so cute when you assume the law applies to the Government.

KNOWING that the law is SUPPOSED to apply to EVERYONE is what makes us free citizens of a Republic...not subjects or serfs. Its also the reason that the Second Amendment exists. One liberty-minded, armed man is nothing but a NATION of liberty-minded and armed citizens is a whole other thing...and don't think "they" don't know that, either.