Drone surveillence

[pcuser]

An interesting thread. I'm guessing there will be some strange bedfellows with this one...

http://theweek.com/article/index/269...with-a-shotgun

[HawgZWylde]

Lol, I read about this a few days ago, good on him. But this one bothers me more and goes to show more proof that Moonbean Brown indeed supports Statist policy...

http://online.wsj.com/articles/calif...nce-1412007285

[Lady Quagga]

An interesting thread. I'm guessing there will be some strange bedfellows with this one...

http://theweek.com/article/index/269...with-a-shotgun

Sigh.

I am a strong supporter of an individual's right to own firearms. I also concerned about the potential for misuse of drones by unscrupulous individuals. But this guy broke the law by firing on the drone, and has to answer for it. I am guessing the only thing that might save him from a conviction is if the drone was over his property at the time of the shooting.

Lol, I read about this a few days ago, good on him. But this one bothers me more and goes to show more proof that Moonbean Brown indeed supports Statist policy...

http://online.wsj.com/articles/calif...nce-1412007285

I am somewhat torn on this issue.

A hypothetical: let's say a LEO is parked at the top of a hill with a clear line of sight on a house at the bottom of the hill, conducting surveillance on the house as part of a criminal investigation. No warrant is needed. Why would using a drone, which would provide the same elevated angle and line of sight as the hill, require a warrant if it is not violating a landowner's airspace or otherwise breaking any other laws with its operation?

(EDIT: I would absolutely oppose the use of drones as a sort of aerial "wiretap", and when it comes to the 4th Amendment I would err on the side of an individual's rights over law enforcement. The question comes down to what we consider a reasonable expectation of privacy, hence my hilltop analogy.)

[pcuser]

Sigh.

I am a strong supporter of an individual's right to own firearms. I also concerned about the potential for misuse of drones by unscrupulous individuals. But this guy broke the law by firing on the drone, and has to answer for it. I am guessing the only thing that might save him from a conviction is if the drone was over his property at the time of the shooting.



I am somewhat torn on this issue.

A hypothetical: let's say a LEO is parked at the top of a hill with a clear line of sight on a house at the bottom of the hill, conducting surveillance on the house as part of a criminal investigation. No warrant is needed. Why would using a drone, which would provide the same elevated angle and line of sight as the hill, require a warrant if it is not violating a landowner's airspace or otherwise breaking any other laws with its operation?

(EDIT: I would absolutely oppose the use of drones as a sort of aerial "wiretap", and when it comes to the 4th Amendment I would err on the side of an individual's rights over law enforcement. The question comes down to what we consider a reasonable expectation of privacy, hence my hilltop analogy.)

These raise some conflicting issues...