Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras
- Digital sensors become cheaper and wireless connections become more powerful.
- The Justice Department would allow police to install cameras on private property without court oversight as required by the Bill of Rights.
- And both Democrats and Republicans have joined together to approve and fund the new American Police State.
The Coming Police State - Once again the failed "war" on drugs is being used to abolish the Bill if Rights. Police are allowed to install hidden surveillance cameras on private property without obtaining a search warrant, a federal judge ruled.
U.S. District Judge William Griesbach ruled that it was reasonable for Drug Enforcement Administration agents to enter rural property without permission -- and without a warrant -- to install multiple "covert digital surveillance cameras" in hopes of uncovering evidence that 30 to 40 marijuana plants were being grown.
This is the latest case to highlight how advances in technology are causing the legal system to rethink how Americans' privacy rights are protected by law.
In January, the Supreme Court rejected warrantless GPS tracking after previously rejecting warrantless thermal imaging, but it has not yet ruled on warrantless cell phone tracking or warrantless use of surveillance cameras placed on private property without permission reports Cnet News.
Griesbach adopted a recommendation by U.S. Magistrate Judge William Callahan dated October 9. That recommendation said that the DEA's warrantless surveillance did not violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and requires that warrants describe the place that's being searched.
"The Supreme Court has upheld the use of technology as a substitute for ordinary police surveillance," Callahan wrote.
Two defendants in the case, Manuel Mendoza and Marco Magana of Green Bay, Wis., have been charged with federal drug crimes after DEA agent Steven Curran claimed to have discovered more than 1,000 marijuana plants grown on the property, and face possible life imprisonment and fines of up to $10 million.
Mendoza and Magana asked Callahan to throw out the video evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, noting that "No Trespassing" signs were posted throughout the heavily wooded, 22-acre property owned by Magana and that it also had a locked gate.
Judge Napolitano
"Government Violating 3rd/4th/5th/9th Amendments from 30,000 Ft. Above"
No comments:
Post a Comment