TexasCHLforum.com

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.

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.

The Annoyed Man wrote: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?

C-dub wrote: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.

Heartland Patriot wrote: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 wrote: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?

Ayn Rand wrote:"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."

LabRat wrote: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

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