What’s visible from public spaces, including the air, is not considered a search of your persons, houses, papers, and effects. Or at least not an unreasonable search.
What’s visible with the naked eye. If using a dog outside an apartment door to smell weed is unconstitutional, I imagine doing a flyover with a drone is too.
I remember hearing about police thermal camera use being unconstitutional (or at least not allowed) in some places. How is this different?
I would like to add I have no source for this it’s just something I remember hearing and you shouldn’t believe people on the Internet do some research in verified sources or reputable news organizations and definitely don’t just blindly believe what I have to say, but if it’s for entertainment purposes then sure believe me. I believe me but I’m not heavily invested in verifying this fact.
Police are not allowed to use anything other than the ‘naked eye’ (their own senses) without a warrant.
If this includes police dogs (it does, the SC ruled on this and a conservative justice wrote the majority decision), it includes drones (with or without thermal cameras).
How do you think they catch grow-houses? They thermal scan neighborhoods for heat signatures from the grow lights. Cops are masters of subverting the law to do whatever they want.
I know thermal imaging has been used to look for marijuana farms, back when grow lamps were incandescent and houses would stand out as hot. But I don’t know if they had warrants for those or not.
But to actually use imaging, whether it’s thermal, radio, or X-ray, to see through a wall, is definitely considered a search.
Your property rights do not stop at the ground. No one has the right to fly a drone over your property. There’s just usually not much you can do about it.
What’s visible from public spaces, including the air, is not considered a search of your persons, houses, papers, and effects. Or at least not an unreasonable search.
So if I got a drone and live streamed some cops backyard pool party that’d be ok?
Depends, are you a cop?
It would probably be legal.
What’s visible with the naked eye. If using a dog outside an apartment door to smell weed is unconstitutional, I imagine doing a flyover with a drone is too.
I remember hearing about police thermal camera use being unconstitutional (or at least not allowed) in some places. How is this different?
I would like to add I have no source for this it’s just something I remember hearing and you shouldn’t believe people on the Internet do some research in verified sources or reputable news organizations and definitely don’t just blindly believe what I have to say, but if it’s for entertainment purposes then sure believe me. I believe me but I’m not heavily invested in verifying this fact.
So they can use thermal imaging from outside the house to watch the people inside? That’s bs
Police are not allowed to use anything other than the ‘naked eye’ (their own senses) without a warrant.
If this includes police dogs (it does, the SC ruled on this and a conservative justice wrote the majority decision), it includes drones (with or without thermal cameras).
NYC will see a lawsuit out of this for sure.
How do you think they catch grow-houses? They thermal scan neighborhoods for heat signatures from the grow lights. Cops are masters of subverting the law to do whatever they want.
I know thermal imaging has been used to look for marijuana farms, back when grow lamps were incandescent and houses would stand out as hot. But I don’t know if they had warrants for those or not.
But to actually use imaging, whether it’s thermal, radio, or X-ray, to see through a wall, is definitely considered a search.
Thermal cameras can’t see through glass, but they could be used to see if a building is significantly warmer than the surrounding structures.
Your property rights do not stop at the ground. No one has the right to fly a drone over your property. There’s just usually not much you can do about it.
I’ma need to see a source for this claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_surveillance_doctrine
That’s a good place to start. It summarizes a few supreme court cases that you can read more about.
Absolutely wild overreach. Thanks for the link.