Results 1 to 2 of 2
Thread: Drone Hysteria
01-17-14, 06:54 PM #1
APB Article: "First arrest using drones- more to follow"
Sorry for the long post, but these anti-government sovereign citizen nuts strike a chord with me. Lately I've been hearing the black helicopter conspiracy theory nut jobs on UFO AM radio griping about this case in North Dakota. The case involves Customs and Border Protection (CBP) assisting a local Sheriff in apprehending some people wanted on warrants, by flying their drone over the suspects farm and relaying the suspect's location to deputies who moved in and made the arrests.
Basically the story goes like this. Some cattle get loose and wonder onto a neighboring farm in Lakota, ND. The farm that the cattle wondered onto belonged to an anti-government sovereign citizen nut job. These are the people who don't pay their taxes, refuse register their vehicles, file phony liens against people they don't like, and shoot cops over minor traffic infractions. This nut job basically said "finders keepers" and would not return the cattle, citing sovereign citizen nonsense as justification for keeping the animals. I'm assuming that ND has laws regarding livestock that get loose, and the sheriff told the suspect that the animals had to be returned. The suspect and his family said no and they end up in jail. They bond out, fail to show up for court, and warrants are issued. Deputies go to arrest these people and an armed standoff begins. CBP flies their drone over the farm and when the suspects had put down their weapons and were doing other things, deputies moved in and made the arrests peacefully. Sounds good to me.
The nut job and his attorney say that the use of the drone violates the 4th Amendment. The judge and jury disagreed and the nut job was convicted of several crimes. My question is this: In Florida v. Riley law enforcement flew an aircraft over a suspects property, they saw his marijuana grow operation and they proceeded to use their observations from the air as evidence. The U.S. Supreme Court said that flying over a suspect's property in public airspace was not a violation. It's no different then making observations from any other public area. Also, in Lee v. U.S., U.S. v. Lee, Texas v. Brown, and U.S. v. Dunn, the Court has upheld law enforcement's use of visual enhancement devices when they are utilizing the devices from a place where the officer had a legal right to be. So basically, officers using high power binoculars to look across large distances to observe suspects who are on private property but still out in the open, while the officer is on a public road, falls under the "plain view" doctrine. So would it be fair to say that a radio controlled aircraft that is equipped with high power zoom cameras, that is being flown in public airspace, and is used to watch suspects who are currently engaged in an armed standoff with sheriff's deputies would also be considered plain view?
01-17-14, 10:08 PM #2
To me it isn't that it's a drone it's what it is used for. Use it correctly and I don't have a problem with it. And I no longer trust ANY of my government but agree that sovereign citizens are not only nut jobs but dangerous ones.
Sovereign Citizens center of St. John shooting investigation | wwltv.com New OrleansDo not war for peace. If you must war, war for justice. For without justice there is no peace. -me
We are who we choose to be.
R.I.P. Arielle. 08/20/2010-09/16/2012
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)