Should Police Use of Drones Be Allowed?

[afchic]

[QUOTE=SMP9168;453525]This is exactly what I was talking about. Many people THINK they know what their rights are, when in fact they do not. This is exactly the reason I posted in the first place. Google "4th Ammendment search warrant exceptions" and you will find several reasons an LEO can enter your house without a warrant and without probable cause. These are Supreme Court rulings, NOT law enforcement rulings.QUOTE]

So I did as you asked, and with 420,000 hits, I briefly looked at the first couple of pages. This one gives a pretty good idea of the issue and is a comprehensive list of what I saw on some of the other pages.

1) No warrant is required for a felony arrest in a public place, even if the arresting officer had ample time to procure a warrant, so long as the officer possessed probable cause that the suspect committed the crime.

2) No warrant is required for searches incident to lawful arrest. If a police officer has made a lawful arrest, with or without a warrant, the Fourth Amendment permits the officer to conduct a search of the suspect's person, clothing, and all of the areas within the suspect's immediate reach. This kind of warrantless search is justified on grounds that it allows police officers to protect themselves from hidden weapons that might suddenly be wielded against them. Accordingly, officers are only permitted to seize items from the area in the immediate control of the arrestee. So I have already been arrested, which would mean I have done something to warrant that action. So they can search my person, no discussion of searching my home or its environs without probable cause.

3) Automobiles may be stopped if an officer possesses a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the motorist has violated a traffic law. Once the vehicle has pulled to the side of the road, the Fourth Amendment permits the officer to search the vehicle's interior, including the glove compartment. However, the trunk of a vehicle cannot be searched unless the officer has probable cause to believe that it contains contraband or the instrumentalities of criminal activity. But similar to a search incident to arrest, once a vehicle has been lawfully impounded, its contents may be inventoried without a warrant, including the contents of the trunk.Once again, doesn't discuss my home or its environs.

4) An officer who reasonably believes that criminal activity may be afoot in a public place is authorized to stop any person who is suspected of participating in that criminal activity and conduct a carefully limited search of the suspect's outer clothing for weapons that may be used against the officer.Stop and Frisk. NO mention of my home and its environs.

5) Warrantless searches, seizures, and arrests may be justified by "exigent" circumstances. To determine whether exigent circumstances justified police conduct, a court must review the totality of the circumstances, including the gravity of the underlying offense and whether the suspect was fleeing or trying to escape. However, the surrounding circumstances must be tantamount to an emergency. Shots fired, screams heard, or fire emanating from inside a building have all been considered sufficiently exigent to dispense with the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.So in layman's terms, probable cause. And in that case, most law abiding citizens wouldn't have a problem with this as someone is more than likely in a dangerous situation.


6) The Supreme Court has upheld brief, warrantless seizures at fixed roadside checkpoints aimed at intercepting illegal aliens (see United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 [1976]) and drunk drivers (see Michigan v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 [1990]). Both checkpoint programs passed constitutional muster because they were tailored to remedying specific problems that law enforcement could not effectively address through more traditional means, namely problems relating to policing the nation's border and ensuring roadway safety. However, when the primary purpose of a checkpoint is simply to detect ordinary criminal activity, the Supreme Court has declared it violative of the Fourth Amendment (see Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 [2000]).Once again, surprise, no mention of my home or its environs.

7) Searches, seizures, and arrests made pursuant to a defective warrant may be justified if the officer was proceeding in "good faith." The Supreme Court has said that a search made pursuant to a warrant that is later declared invalid (i.e., it fails to meet the requirements for a valid warrant enumerated above) will still be considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment so long as the warrant was issued by a magistrate and the defect was not the result of willful police deception (see United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 [1984]). This exception to the warrant requirement was created so as not to punish honest police officers who have done nothing wrong while acting in accordance with an ostensibly valid warrantSo a search was conducted with a warrant that subsequently thrown out.

I am sure if I had the time to go through all 420,000 links I could probably come up with some others, but since you are SWAT, why don't you go ahead an educate the rest of us on how LEOs can enter my home without probable cause or a warrant. Would save all of us a lot of time, and then we are all better able to discuss the issue with the same set of facts.

[SMP9168]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

Do you have something you'd like to say?

Nope, afchic said it for me. Well done afchic, that is a very comprehensive posting of the exceptions to the search warrant exceptions. Most of your interpretation is accurate accept for one. In paragraph 5, under exigent circumstances, hearing screaming inside of a house is not probable cause, rather reasonable suspicion that a crime may be ocurring. Further investigation needs to be conducted to determine whether a crime has occurred. A perfect example is a domestic violence call. Let's just say a female calls 911 and says her husband hit her. No one can be arrested off of that information. When an officer arrives at the house, he/she has an obligation to ensure that the caller is protected. LEO's will enter the house to ensure that no one is in imminent danger. The call alone is reasonable suspicion. The officer will have to interview both parties and see inside the house to determine if there is other evidence such as damage in the home, broken items, etc.

"Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)[1], was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace." - Wikipedia - regarding the 4th Ammendment and aerial surveillance, from another google search.

I'm just trying to put out some information on what current laws say for education purposes. I didn't just study criminal law in a class, I apply it on a regular basis. In reading Supreme Court decisions and briefs regarding aerial surveillance, I believe it is very possible for the supreme court to reverse their earlier decisions, because most of those were 5-4 decisions. Just an opinion.

[Badger52]

Last info I have from someone who teaches this stuff to officers provided this quite awhile ago to me.
(afchic, valiant effort on nuggin through a mountain of hits, Holy Cow).

There's a missing link:

The reasonable articulable suspicion for a traffic stop, which constitutes a temporary "seizure" of your person, is not RAS for an automatic search of your vehicle/compartments within your reach where weapons might be stored. There is a separate set of facts that have to be met for that. Not saying a savvy officer couldn't make that happen but they are different and separate.

Last ref I had was Michigan v. Long on that; perhaps SMP9168 has something that's changed that. I'm neither in jail nor a lawyer.

The protective search of the passenger compartment of respondent's car was reasonable under the principles articulated in Terry and other decisions of this Court. Although Terry involved the stop and subsequent patdown search for weapons of a person suspected of criminal activity, it did not restrict the preventive search to the person of the detained suspect. Protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger. Roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and danger may arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a suspect. Thus, the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer to believe that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons. If, while conducting a legitimate Terry search of an automobile's interior, the officer discovers contraband other than weapons, he cannot be required to ignore the contraband, and the Fourth Amendment does not require its suppression in such circumstances.

[GratefulCitizen]

The creeping overeach of government will eventually stop.
Only the "stopping" method is in question.

Hopefully it will be resolved by the will of the people at the ballot box.


"Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
— Frederick Douglass, Aug. 4, 1857

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Badger52

Last info I have from someone who teaches this stuff to officers provided this quite awhile ago to me.
(afchic, valiant effort on nuggin through a mountain of hits, Holy Cow).

There's a missing link:

The reasonable articulable suspicion for a traffic stop, which constitutes a temporary "seizure" of your person, is not RAS for an automatic search of your vehicle/compartments within your reach where weapons might be stored. There is a separate set of facts that have to be met for that. Not saying a savvy officer couldn't make that happen but they are different and separate.

Last ref I had was Michigan v. Long on that; perhaps SMP9168 has something that's changed that. I'm neither in jail nor a lawyer.

I concur with your assessment.

And if you say "No" to a request to search your vehicle (or home), and the LEO continues anyway, discovering contraband, your attorney may be able to use that search without consent to have the evidence from that search suppressed as "fruit of the poisonous tree."

If you consent, and contraband is found, it will be much harder to argue the search as unlawful.

TR

[afchic]

Originally Posted by SMP9168

Nope, afchic said it for me. Well done afchic, that is a very comprehensive posting of the exceptions to the search warrant exceptions. Most of your interpretation is accurate accept for one. In paragraph 5, under exigent circumstances, hearing screaming inside of a house is not probable cause, rather reasonable suspicion that a crime may be ocurring. Further investigation needs to be conducted to determine whether a crime has occurred. A perfect example is a domestic violence call. Let's just say a female calls 911 and says her husband hit her. No one can be arrested off of that information. When an officer arrives at the house, he/she has an obligation to ensure that the caller is protected. LEO's will enter the house to ensure that no one is in imminent danger. The call alone is reasonable suspicion. The officer will have to interview both parties and see inside the house to determine if there is other evidence such as damage in the home, broken items, etc.

"Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)[1], was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace." - Wikipedia - regarding the 4th Ammendment and aerial surveillance, from another google search.

I'm just trying to put out some information on what current laws say for education purposes. I didn't just study criminal law in a class, I apply it on a regular basis. In reading Supreme Court decisions and briefs regarding aerial surveillance, I believe it is very possible for the supreme court to reverse their earlier decisions, because most of those were 5-4 decisions. Just an opinion.

Maybe I should have used pink instead of orange, to show my sarcasm. The point of my highlighted text was that in none of the cases I highlighted were the police going to be able to enter MY home without a warrant or probable cause. Most of these exceptions pertain to Joe Bag-of Donuts walking/driving around in public.

When it comes to my house, my backyard, you still have not given a reasonable explainantion for why my 4th ammendment right should be trampled on so that a drone can fly around in my backyard. (there is no way that a drone is getting inside my house, even if it knocks and asks nicely, so #5 doesn't matter anyway)

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by afchic

Maybe I should have used pink instead of orange, to show my sarcasm. The point of my highlighted text was that in none of the cases I highlighted were the police going to be able to enter MY home without a warrant or probable cause. Most of these exceptions pertain to Joe Bag-of Donuts walking/driving around in public.

When it comes to my house, my backyard, you still have not given a reasonable explainantion for why my 4th ammendment right should be trampled on so that a drone can fly around in my backyard. (there is no way that a drone is getting inside my house, even if it knocks and asks nicely, so #5 doesn't matter anyway)

Probable Cause would be a good topic to get NG550, Craigpo and RL's take on.

NG550 and I discussed something similar several months ago after a local discussion I read where a cop of sorts informed others that they 'have no rights' and could be searched at his or any LEO's discretion. In the instance that was being discussed a item was reported' stolen during play at a sports facility and this cop of sorts randomly searched a group of individuals (including minors without parental consent) for the item in question. His Probably Cause, someone stole something.....not any specific person(s) but someone.

The end result was that no item was found on anyone searched, and during the ongoing search procedure someone reported finding the item and they turned it over to the owner...who then remembered abandoning it where it had been found.

[Broadsword2004]

Originally Posted by Paslode

Probable Cause would be a good topic to get NG550, Craigpo and RL's take on.

NG550 and I discussed something similar several months ago after a local discussion I read where a cop of sorts informed others that they 'have no rights' and could be searched at his or any LEO's discretion. In the instance that was being discussed a item was reported' stolen during play at a sports facility and this cop of sorts randomly searched a group of individuals (including minors without parental consent) for the item in question. His Probably Cause, someone stole something.....not any specific person(s) but someone.

The end result was that no item was found on anyone searched, and during the ongoing search procedure someone reported finding the item and they turned it over to the owner...who then remembered abandoning it where it had been found.

Not any expert, but I believe police officers are fully allowed to lie to a person (tell them they aren't a suspect when they really are, tell them they have no rights when they really do, et...). It's up to you to know what your rights really are.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Not any expert, but I believe police officers are fully allowed to lie to a person (tell them they aren't a suspect when they really are, tell them they have no rights when they really do, et...). It's up to you to know what your rights really are.

Even off duty? Even to a minor? And the question is Probable Cause....who determines the what and when.

Another consideration, in our area at least employees and security guards commonly see people perform theft, and they let these thieves walk out the door uncontested. And the reason I mention that is that NG550 said anybody confronting someone on a crime had better be working off more than a hunch or whim before they start accusing and searching.

But as we have seen with TSA for example, you really don't have any rights, you are a suspect and you are guilty until proven innocent. Whether it is by drone, LEO on foot or Mall Cop when you have this ongoing integration of Local, State and Federal agencies it won't belong before the TSA mindset is common place in your neighborhood.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Paslode

Probable Cause would be a good topic to get NG550, Craigpo and RL's take on.

Ill pass this along.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by SMP9168

Nope, afchic said it for me.

Originally Posted by afchic

Maybe I should have used pink instead of orange, to show my sarcasm.

Nee ner nee ner nee ner.

[SLVGW360]

This discussion has taken many twists and turns. I am surprised that someone has not posted the actual definitions for "probable cause" or a listing of the various warrant exceptions. On the other hand, the scope of the discussion of "probable cause", criminal investigation, search and seizure rules fills volumes of legal text and is likely beyond the volume desired by those interested this discussion. The rules also differ slightly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The US Supreme Court which decides the law of the land has over arching influence on all jurisdictions, but there are many issues for which they have not ruled. That is one reason for the differences.

For example, in Colorado there are 10 "well established" exceptions to the warrant requirement; 23 additional exceptions, arguments and derivative evidence; 4 derivative evidence rules; and 5 differences with Federal Law. Typically most jurisdictions have a "most restrictive applies" rule. As in Local Law can be more restrictive than State Law and State Law can be more restrictive than Federal Law, so on and so forth. They just can't be more liberal. This is another reason for differences.

Below is one Colorado Statute dealing with Search Warrants along with only a small portion of the attached legal annotations. I have included it because it defines "probable cause" in green text.


C.R.S. 16-3-303 (Copy w/ Cite)
Pages: 14
C.R.S. 16-3-303

COLORADO REVISED STATUTES

*** THIS DOCUMENT REFLECTS CHANGES CURRENT THROUGH ALL LAWS PASSED AT THE FIRST REGULAR SESSION OF THE 68TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF COLORADO ***

TITLE 16. CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
ARTICLE 3. ARREST - SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
PART 3. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

C.R.S. 16-3-303 (2011)

16-3-303. Search warrants - application



(1) A search warrant shall issue only on affidavit sworn to or affirmed before the judge and relating facts sufficient to:

(a) Identify or describe, as nearly as may be, the premises, person, place, or thing to be searched;

(b) Identify or describe, as nearly as may be, the property to be searched for, seized, or inspected;

(c) Establish the grounds for issuance of the warrant or probable cause to believe that such grounds exist; and

(d) Establish probable cause to believe that the property to be searched for, seized, or inspected is located at, in, or upon the premises, person, place, or thing to be searched.

(2) The affidavit required by this section may include sworn testimony reduced to writing and signed under oath by the witness giving the testimony before issuance of the warrant. A copy of the affidavit and a copy of the transcript of testimony taken in support of the request for a search warrant shall be attached to the search warrant filed with the court.

(3) Procedures governing application for and issuance of search warrants consistent with this section may be established by rule of the supreme court.

(4) A no-knock search warrant shall be issued only if the affidavit for such warrant:

(a) Complies with the provisions of subsections (1), (2), and (3) of this section;

(b) Specifically requests the issuance of a no-knock search warrant; and

(c) Has been reviewed and approved for legal sufficiency and signed by a district attorney pursuant to section 20-1-106.1 (1) (b), C.R.S. Such review and approval may take place as allowed by statute or court rule or by means of facsimile transmission, telephonic transmission, or other electronic transfer.

(5) If the grounds for the issuance of a no-knock search warrant are established by a confidential informant, the affidavit for such warrant shall contain a statement by the affiant concerning when such grounds became known or were verified by the affiant. The statement shall not identify the confidential informant.

(6) For the purposes of this section, unless the context otherwise requires, "no-knock search warrant" means a search warrant served by entry without prior identification.

HISTORY: Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 200, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-3-303.L. 2000: (4), (5), and (6) added, p. 650, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2001: (4)(c) amended, p. 1270, § 19, effective June 5.


ANNOTATION

I. General Consideration.
II. Content and Sufficiency of Affidavit.

I.GENERAL CONSIDERATION.

Law reviews. For article, "Veracity Challenges in Colorado: A Primer", see 14 Colo. Law. 227 (1985).

Annotator's note. (1) Since § 16-3-303 is similar to repealed § 39-2-6, C.R.S. 1963, relevant cases construing that provision have been included in the annotations to this section.

(2) For further annotations concerning search and seizure, see § 7 of art. II of the Colo. Const., and Crim. P. 41.

Unreasonable searches and seizures forbidden. Section 7 of art. II, Colo. Const., as well as the fourth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution, forbids unreasonable searches and seizures and further requires that searches and seizures be made only pursuant to a warrant based upon probable cause and supported by oath or affirmation. People v. Thompson, 185 Colo. 208, 523 P.2d 128 (1974).

Search authorized only upon showing of probable cause. It is only upon a showing of probable cause that the legal doors are opened to allow the police to gain official entry into an individual's domain of privacy for the purpose of conducting a search or to make an official seizure under the constitution. People v. Brethauer, 174 Colo. 29, 482 P.2d 369 (1971).

Probable cause defined. Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge, and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed. In dealing with probable cause, one deals with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. People v. Brethauer, 174 Colo. 29, 482 P.2d 369 (1971); People v. Thompson, 185 Colo. 208, 523 P.2d 128 (1974).

Probable cause is an elusive term and is incapable of any precise definition which would permit a mechanical application under all circumstances. Flesher v. People, 174 Colo. 355, 484 P.2d 113 (1971).

Totality of circumstances test adopted for determining probable cause. People v. Pennebaker, 714 P.2d 904 (Colo. 1986).

Anticipatory warrants are barred by statutory language and identical language in Crim. P. 41 requiring that property to be searched for, seized, or inspected "is located at, in, or upon" premise, person, place, or thing to be searched. People v. Poirez, 904 P.2d 880 (Colo. 1995).

For evidence constituting probable cause, see People v. Lindholm, 197 Colo. 270, 591 P.2d 1032 (1979).

Mere suspicion does not by itself constitute probable cause. People v. Thompson, 185 Colo. 208, 523 P.2d 128 (1974).

Mere conclusory belief or suspicion by an affiant officer is not enough upon which to base the issuance of a search warrant. People v. Clavey, 187 Colo. 305, 530 P.2d 491 (1975).

Determination of probable cause is a judicial function to be performed by the issuing magistrate, which in Colorado may be any judge of the supreme, district, county, superior, or justice of the peace court under Crim. P. 41, and is not a matter to be left to the discretion of a law enforcement officer who is employed to apprehend criminals and to bring before the courts for trial those who would violate the law. People v. Brethauer, 174 Colo. 29, 482 P.2d 369 (1971).

The role of the police officer in search warrant practice is limited solely to providing the judge with facts and trustworthy information upon which he, as a neutral and detached judicial officer, may make a proper determination. People v. Brethauer, 174 Colo. 29, 482 P.2d 369 (1971).

And mere affirmance of belief or suspicion of an officer is not enough. To hold otherwise would attach controlling significance to the officer's belief rather than to the magistrate's judicial determination. People v. Brethauer, 174 Colo. 29, 482 P.2d 369 (1971).

Independent determination of probable cause. The fact that the police did not request a warrant to search additional places likely to contain incriminating evidence is irrelevant to the independent determination of probable cause to search the place specified in the warrant. People v. Chase, 675 P.2d 315 (Colo. 1984).

[SMP9168]

Originally Posted by afchic

Maybe I should have used pink instead of orange, to show my sarcasm. The point of my highlighted text was that in none of the cases I highlighted were the police going to be able to enter MY home without a warrant or probable cause. Most of these exceptions pertain to Joe Bag-of Donuts walking/driving around in public.

When it comes to my house, my backyard, you still have not given a reasonable explainantion for why my 4th ammendment right should be trampled on so that a drone can fly around in my backyard. (there is no way that a drone is getting inside my house, even if it knocks and asks nicely, so #5 doesn't matter anyway)

First, you first asked to state how a law enforcement officer could enter a home without a warrant or probable cause. I provided you with an answer.

Second, I don't believe anyone's 4th Ammendment rights should be trampled, nor do I believe a drone should be allowed to fly around in your backyard. My reasoning for posting to this thread was to provide another perspective and to hopefully educate some in what the Supreme Court has already decided in cases that are relevant to the topic. Here are those cases -
CA vs Ciraolo
FL vs Riley
US vs Dow Chemical

In all three cases the US Supreme Court decided that using aerial surveillance to view and photograph over private property, to include the curtilage (ie your backyard) was lawful. It is important to note that all of these cases involved manned aircraft. I could not find case law regarding unmanned surveillance aircraft. When it does come up, and it will, it is highly likely that these three cases will be used as a guide for the courts to make a decision.

[MR2]

There seems to have been a lot of "shooting the messenger" going on in this thread. I would hope that we all try to separate feelings and opinions from honest answers to good questions.

Is that really just a fly? Swarms of cyborg insect drones are the future of military surveillance

The kinds of drones making the headlines daily are the heavily armed CIA and U.S. Army vehicles which routinely strike targets in Pakistan - killing terrorists and innocents alike.

But the real high-tech story of surveillance drones is going on at a much smaller level, as tiny remote controlled vehicles based on insects are already likely being deployed.

Over recent years a range of miniature drones, or micro air vehicles (MAVs), based on the same physics used by flying insects, have been presented to the public.

The fear kicked off in 2007 when reports of bizarre flying objects hovering above anti-war protests sparked accusations that the U.S. government was accused of secretly developing robotic insect spies.

More at the link.

[Paslode]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/47420

Drones over America

The bipartisan move to make all U.S. real estate a battleground was instrumental for a number of reasons, from the use of drones to the implementation of many of Obama’s executive orders. “Especially the drones,” said my source. He added that drones are being used not as they should, but as personal weapons for the advancement of this administration’s domestic goals. And don’t think that some aren’t armed. They are, and for a reason.

“Here’s something to look for, a trial balloon of sorts,” stated my source. “Pick a state in the desert southwest, and consider a hideous threat to our national security. Now, wait for Obama, Napolitano and representatives of other agencies appear in a solemn news conference saying that they saved the country from a nearly successful attack on our soil by using an armed drone to strike a target on the ground before the terrorist attack could succeed. And the majority of Americans will applaud with pride. It will all be staged, although the true facts confined to only the highest levels of government.”

The purpose of such an exercise? Condition Americans to believe we need both surveillance and armed drones flying over our skies to keep us safe.

4-5 years ago I would have laughed at that as being completely absurd...anything is possible these days