Surveillance without a warrant. How would you respond?
(media.gab.com)
Comments (78)
sorted by:
Bedrock Point #1.
"The welfare of humanity has always been the alibi of tyrants."
Christine Anderson (And many others)
Never heard this before but I like it better than “the road paved with goodness leads to hell” or something like that.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It's true, in a fashion, because if you delude yourself into doing something that you believe aids other people or humanity in spite of the human cost, then your good intentions end up being perverted.
And it's a tale as old as time; and also a phrase that gets applied very broadly where it is not relevant.
Drones make noise. You can hear them coming, even from inside. Anti-drug my ass.
They could easily fly them high enough to be out of range as well. This is harassment at best.
Airspace is nobody's property so if you want to store your beer bottles 25 feet up in the air, go right ahead.
Not true. I know of a few people who made their fortunes "flipping" airspace. And property owners are entitled to a portion of the airspace above their properties. According to a Supreme Court ruling, that is 83'. Here is an interesting piece even though it's a bit old: https://www.landsearch.com/blog/property-air-rights
Nobody owns the air. God owns -- it's God's air.
Lol🐸👌
That is where I store mine temporarily, just for a second until their density makes them fall back down.
If we're talking buildings, air rights is a thing. Though I do believe that the FAA doesn't own air space, but they do control and regulate it, including certain drones and certain altitudes.
It's not a crime yet.
Now that guy is expert level beer bottle thrower, my hats off to you Mr beer bottle thrower guy.
Real Men of Genius.
Budweiser is woke and gay -- every reference to them is weak and sad
You know what, you're right. Good call.
Whiskey drinking intensifies
That picture is straight out of Idiocracy!!!
Except these people are doing something smart.
Respectfully disagree, unless referring to the idiocy of the cops surveillance of private property without a warrant (which even then has time limits).
With a shotgun. I'll ask questions later.
This was posted in the_donald the other day. I made a point that it's next to impossible to tell if a drone belongs to the police when it's a hundred feet in the air, for all these people knew it was just some peeping tom. Then this one faggot comes in crying that he's commercial drone pilot and he has every right to fly over people's houses because people don't own the airspace over their property. I quickly dismissed him as a troll after he said that when you're out in public you're recorded hundreds of time and your cell phone tracks your whereabouts, therefor it's foolish to expect privacy in your own yard. But, there's a chance he was being sincere in announcing just how much of a faggot he is.
I consider my farm a NFZ as they disturb my livestock. I've picked off flying crows with a 17hmr, drones should be no problem.
lol, i first misread flying crows as flying cows.
I love my HMR17. So accurate !
With a lawsuit and a lawyer.
Why not both? Knock the drone down, Faraday-black bag it and have someone drive it away.
Ha...Portsmouth....surprised they weren't shot down
What is the proper shotgun shell for drones? #6 shot?
Standard birdshot #6 for maximum hit probability and destruction. Cheap and effective, especially at the range shown in the picture: there would be pieces of that drone everywhere. Added benefit: any shot that missed wouldnt hurt anyone outside 150yrds and, considering you're shooting UP, would have even less worry. It'd be like throwing a handful of BB's in the air as they come down.
I grew up in Sciotoville. Know this place well.
It is a government project. Government housing. FYI. I know personally.
KEK
Bottles?
Come on man, that is what a good high powered pellet rifle is for.
I'd make a sign and hold it up that says "where's your warrant?"
'LAND NOW! "
"TURN OFF THE VEHICLE"
🐸👌
Sunbathe nude
"I was naked? How do you know? Were you watching me or something?"
#9 buckshot. That's how I'd respond.
So apparently this is satire according to this Facebook page.
Not only that but it was posted back in 2019.
https://www.facebook.com/portsmouthofficial/photos/attention-wayne-hills-residentsplease-stop-throwing-beer-bottles-at-the-drones-t/354784548777202/
Don't know how this will look on mobile, but on desktop, you will find "Portsmouth Ohio Official" title on the right side with "Satire page" right under the title.
I don't have good aim so rifle it is.
Nice to see rednecks having good aim. Makes a good case for drinking beer from a bottle instead of an aluminium can. Sorry, but the cops have every right to fly over a street, but not over MY PRIVATE PROPERTY. Once they break that boundry, it's my RIGHT to defend my family......from all preceived threats!
Are most drones in a certain radio frequency, Wi-Fi, cellular, exc? Maybe a herf gun or directed emp or jammer?
Normally they cannot fly over people even in the public right of way.
True account- I've personally seen multiple drones multiple times at nighttime buzzing above in my smallish, SE coast Florida town. I'm near a small but busy executive airport in a relatively low crime area- where I assume the drones are launched. Its disconcerting bc the general public (taxpayers who fund) are never informed about it, nor the results/reasons why these drones are cost effective vs invasions of privacy protected by 4th Amendment.
Our county Sheriff is of the tribe btw.
Every...
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/488/445/
This case covered a search warrant for a greenhouse believed to be growing marijuana that was discovered by a police helicopter. District court suppressed the evidence. Court of appeals reversed. Florida Supreme Court revered the appeals court. SCOTUS reversed the Florida Supreme Court.
The only property that receives 4th amendment protection is the curtilege. Which “includes area immediately surrounding a dwelling, and it counts as part of the home for many legal purposes, including searches and many self-defense laws. When considering whether something is in a dwelling's curtilage, courts consider four factors:
The proximity of the thing to the dwelling. Whether the thing is within an enclosure surrounding the home. What the thing is used for. What steps, if any, the resident took to protect the thing from observation/access by people passing by. These factors were determined by the Supreme Court in United States v. Dunn.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/curtilage
Justice O’Conner disagreed with the other 4 justices in the majority on the reasoning, rendering it a plurality opinion and not binding precedent. The dissent is pretty solid. It describes a hypothetical that did not exist in 1989, but it sure does now. I will first cite Brennan in dissent citing from the plurality, then his dissent:
“Neither is there any intimation here that the helicopter interfered with respondent's normal use of the greenhouse or of other parts of the curtilage. As far as this record reveals, no intimate details connected with the use of the home or curtilage were observed, and there was no undue noise, and no wind, dust, or threat of injury. In these circumstances, there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment."
I will deal with the "intimate details" below. For the rest, one wonders what the plurality believes the purpose of the Fourth Amendment to be. If through noise, wind, dust, and threat of injury from helicopters the State "interfered with respondent's normal use of the greenhouse or of other parts of the curtilage," Riley might have a cause of action in inverse condemnation, but that is not what the Fourth Amendment is all about. Nowhere is this better stated than in JUSTICE WHITE's opinion for the Court in Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523, 387 U. S. 528 (1967):
"The basic purpose of this Amendment, as recognized in countless decisions of this Court, is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials."
Justice Brennan then says:
“If indeed the purpose of the restraints imposed by the Fourth Amendment is to "safeguard the privacy and security of individuals," then it is puzzling why it should be the helicopter's noise, wind, and dust that provides the measure of whether this constitutional safeguard has been infringed. Imagine a helicopter capable of hovering just above an enclosed courtyard or patio without generating any noise, wind, or dust at all -- and, for good measure, without posing any threat of injury. Suppose the police employed this miraculous tool to discover not only what crops people were growing in their greenhouses, but also what books they were reading and who their dinner guests were. Suppose, finally, that the FAA regulations remained unchanged, so that the police were undeniably "where they had a right to be." Would today's plurality continue to assert that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" was not infringed by such surveillance? Yet that is the logical consequence of the plurality's rule that, so long as the police are where they have a right to be under air traffic regulations, the Fourth Amendment is offended only if the aerial surveillance interferes with the use of the backyard as a garden spot. Nor is there anything in the plurality's opinion to suggest that any different rule would apply were the police looking from their helicopter, not into the open curtilage, but through an open window into a room viewable only from the air.”
I think it is safe for police to rely on this case law. But, if SCOTUS took a case on this issue, I am doubtful they would still decide it the way they did in 1989. Not just because I think the reasoning is questionable; but the Court had been on a tear trying to undo the Warren & Burger Courts at that point and were basically weaving a word salad of faulty logic to uphold nearly every act of government. We actually got a good decision in 2018 that barred police from getting warrantless cell tower tracking data. However they did this while not abrogating US v. Miller (1976); a case which held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in information made available to third parties.
That case has an amazing dissent by Justice Thurgood Marshall (who does not get near enough credit around these parts for upholding these types of constitutional protections). Two issues were here: (1) an invalid subpoena issued by a US Attorney and not a court; and (2) whether a warrant is required vs a subpoena. I won’t cite his dissent, I recommend you read it directly.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/425/435/#tab-opinion-1951689
Good time to get the trap gun out and practice shooting for birds. I've always thought the easiest way to take out low flying drones is a nice bird gun. Next time your shooting trap call "Drone" instead of "bird" or "pull". Might get a few chuckles
that's why we use WINE bottles!
I’ll take my hose to it - let’s see how it does with water
All I see is the homeowners playing a game to see who can hit it first.
If they were serious, a single shotgun blast would be the quickest way to do it.
Dummy, get a shotgun retards
I’ve been there. Ptown
LOL
Barney getting a drone would have made a great Andy Griffith show.
A Red Rider BB gun ought to work just fine.
Aren't Sam Adam's beer cans cheaper? (Since you can recycle them afterward?)
No warrant required to surveil what is in plain view
That looks kinda fun. I'm tempted to go to Portsmouth and start pitching beer bottles. I would probably get the hang of it after a while.
Flying over my property, it's now MY drone. Kek
Get a 12 guage